The Seminar of Barcelona on ‘Die Wege der Symptombildung
’ : probably Autumn 1996 : Jacques-Alain Miller

by Julia Evans on September 1, 1996

Content of this post:

Availability

Subtitles of the text

References to Sigmund Freud & Jacques Lacan with some quotes

Availability

Jacques-Alain Miller with Roser Casalprim, Lucia D’Angelo, Vicente Palomera & Joan Salinas. Spanish text established by Vicente Palomera with the collaboration of Rosa Alba Zaidel, Luis Miguel Carrion & Eugenio Diaz. (Revised and corrected by Jacques-Alain Miller) December 1996. The seminar was held in Barcelona in Autumn 1996.

Published in Psychoanalytical Notebooks of the London Circle : Issue 1 : Symptom : Autumn 1998 : p11-36 & p37-65

Translated by Roseane Barros

Available as follows:

Part 1 : p11-36

From the London Society of the New Lacanian School’s web-site here

Or here

Part 2 : p37-65

From the London Society of the New Lacanian School’s web-site here

Or here

Note, in transcribing from the printed form to pdf many slips have occurred, which are not in the original.

Subtitles of the text

Part One 
The choice of a theme - Vicente Palomera – p11 in Psychoanalytical Notebooks

A turntable – Jacques-Alain Miller – p14 PN

Presentation by Lucia D’Angelo  – p15 PN

The binary sense-jouissance  – Jacques-Alain Miller – p17 PN

The five Lacanian operations: to separate…  – Jacques-Alain Miller – p18 PN

… to articulate – Jacques-Alain Miller – p21 PN

… to deduce, to produce and to knot – Jacques-Alain Miller – p22 PN

An anecdote of the Introductory Lectures – Jacques-Alain Miller – p23 PN

Freud’s pathway – Jacques-Alain Miller – p24 PN

Regression and repression -Jacques-Alain Miller – p26 PN

An internal obstacle - Jacques-Alain Miller – 27 PN

Sinn and Bedeutung -Jacques-Alain Miller – p28 PN

The cases - Jacques-Alain Miller – p28 PN

What is intercepted in the symptom - Jacques-Alain Miller – p29 PN

Libido as signified -Jacques-Alain Miller – p31 PN

Discussion- Jacques-Alain Miller with Roser Casalprim & others – p32 PN

Part Two

Vicente Palomera & Roser Casalprim introduce this section. – p37 PN

Comments by Jacques-Alain Miller p38 PN

‘Variatat’ (Varité) of the symptom - Joan Salinas – p39 PN

Acknowledgements – Jacques-Alain Miller – p45 PN

The – now – famous lecture – Jacques-Alain Miller – p46 PN

We enter in the text itself of the – now- famous Lecture XXIII entitled by Freud “The Paths to the Formation of Symptoms”. I proposed to call it “Die Bedeutung der Symptom” in regard to “Der Sinn der Symptom” which is the title of Lecture XVII.

From the Holzwege to Freud’s Unwege
– Jacques-Alain Miller – p46 PN

The Wege and the Umwege
– Jacques-Alain Miller – p48 PN

The sections of Lecture XXIII – Jacques-Alain Miller – p50 PN

Let us proceed to the sections of the text, which I will give title to. There are eight:

1. The flight of the libido.

2. Constitution and experiences:

3. Infantile sexual experiences

4. The satisfaction in the symptom

The following sections deal with the fantasy.

5. Fantasy and reality.

6. Primal fantasies.


7. The Bedeutung of the symptom, the fixation.

8. The last section, section 8, deals with Creation, with art as an inversion along the symptomatic pathway.

Modes of jouissance and its cost – Jacques-Alain Miller  – p52 PN

A clinic without conflict – Jacques-Alain Miller – p53 PN

A new form of drive satisfaction – Jacques-Alain Miller – p54 PN

The symptom and time – Jacques-Alain Miller – p55 PN

Lacan’s symptom – Jacques-Alain Miller – p57 PN

The real lies – Jacques-Alain Miller – p58 PN

The structural solution – Jacques-Alain Miller – p59

The problem of auto-eroticism  – Jacques-Alain Miller – p60 PN

The reference to the symptom – Jacques-Alain Miller – p61 PN

Extroverting the fantasy – Jacques-Alain Miller – p63 PN

Between anguish and deceit – Jacques-Alain Miller – p63 PN

The Freudian forest  - the closure by Vicente Palomera – p64 PN

References to Sigmund Freud & Jacques Lacan & quotes

Note : There are numerous references to ‘Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis’ within this text. I have not traced each reference but give the Standard Edition reference where available. There follows details of its availability:

Sigmund Freud : Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis: 1915-1917 : SE XV & XVI  (Published 1916-1917) :

Published by www.questia.com and available here

or published by www.gutenberg.org and available here

or published by www.archive.org and available here

All page numbers refer to Psychoanalytical Notebooks

P11

* The Paths to the Formation of Symptoms, Lecture XXIII of the Vorlesung (Introductory Lectures), SE XVI

* two of Freud’s texts – Analysis Terminable and Interminable and Constructions in Analysis

Available Analysis Terminable & Interminable: 1937c : Sigmund Freud SE XXIII, p209-54 : Available at the ICLA.edu site, here  as published in Int. J. Psycho-Anal., Vol XVIII : p373- 405.

Constructions in analysis : 1937d : Sigmund Freud  : SE XXIII : p257- 269. : Available here

P12

* in 1975 Lacan gave a lecture on the symptom in Geneva where he said the following: “Read a little of the Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, Freud’s Vorlesungen. There are two chapters on the symptom. One is called Wege der Symptombildung, the paths to the fomation of symptoms, which is chapter XXIII, then you will see that there is a chapter XVII which is called Der Sinn, The Sense of Symptoms. [p14 of Russell Grigg’s translation of Geneva Lecture] : See Geneva lecture on the symptom: 4th October1975: Jacques Lacan or here

* “Freud placed a lot of emphasis on this. He thought that the term ‘auto-eroticism’ needed to be accentuated, in the sense that the child initially discovers this sexual reality on his own body. I permit myself, and this doesn’t happen every day, to disagree – and to disagree in the name of Freud’s work itself.” Lacan proceeds to the case of Little Hans [p14-15 of Russell Grigg’s translation of Geneva Symptom] : See Geneva lecture on the symptom : 4th October 1975 : Jacques Lacan or here

p13

* Lacan explains the introduction of what Little Hans used to call his Wiwimacher, his ‘widdler’ – because he did not know how to call it in any other way – in his circuit. [p14 of Russell Grigg’s translation of Geneva Lecture] : See Geneva lecture on the symptom : 4th October 1975 : Jacques Lacan or here

* Then, in Geneva, Lacan takes Little Hans’ symptom as a counterpoint: “It is only necessary to know that in certain beings, the encounter with one’s own erection is not the least auto-erotic, it is the most ‘hetero’ that exists [p15 of Russell Grigg’s translation of  Geneva Lecture] : See Geneva lecture on the symptom : 4th October1975 : Jacques Lacan or here

* Freud The Sense of Symptoms – Lecture XVII in Introductory Lectures.

P14

* Lecture XXIII The Paths to the Formation of Symptoms – Introductory Lectures

* I [Jacques-Alain Miller] would like to praise him [Vicente Palomera] for his Witz: Note, this is possibly a reference to Jacques Lacan’s discussion of Freud’s term ‘Witz’ in Seminar V : 6th November 1957 : from p7 to 14, Ch1 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : See Seminar V : The Formations of the Unconscious : 1957-1958 : begins 6th November 1957 : Jacques Lacan, see here

p15

* Lacan in the Geneva Lecture on the Symptom Geneva lecture on the symptom : 4th October 1975: Jacques Lacan or here

* 1930, Freud himself states, in the preface to the Hebrew translation of these lectures, SE XVI : p11

p16

* Strachey’s comment, in which he says that nowhere in Freud’s work can one find so many different definitions, for example, of the unconscious, as in the lectures of 1915 and 1917 : This has not been located.  Any ideas?

* From the theory of the drive established in 1905, (Freud) : Probably Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality : Sigmund Freud : 1905d : SE VII p123-245

or Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious : 1905 : Sigmund Freud : Published in  SE VIII : 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

* Around 1910, the great clinical contributions of Freud are produced.  (the five clinical cases) : probably

Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria (‘Dora’) : 1901 [1905] : Sigmund Freud : SE VII p7-114 : Available from Richard G. Klein’s website www.Freud2Lacan.com or here

Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-year-old Boy – ‘Little Hans’: 1909 : Freud : SE X p5-149 : Available from Richard G. Klein’s web-site www.Freud2Lacan.com or here

Notes upon a case of Obsessional Neurosis (The ‘Rat Man’) : 1909d : Sigmund Freud : Standard Edition X : p155 or Penguin Freud Library (PFL) : Vol 9 : p31

Psychoanalytic notes on an autobiographical account of a case of paranoia (Dementia Paranoides) (President Schreber) : 1910 (published 1911c) : Sigmund Freud :  See here

From the History of an Infantile Neurosis (The ‘Wolf Man’) : 1914 [published 1918b] : Sigmund Freud : Standard Edition: Vol 17 (SE XVII): p3 or Penguin Freud Library (PFL) : Vol 9: p225 : Published at Richard G. Klein’s site www.Freud2Lacan.com and available here

P17

* On Narcissism of 1914, : See On narcissism, an introduction :1914 : Sigmund Freud : Available here

* we do not yet have Beyond the Pleasure Principle nor The Ego and the Id nor Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. What we do have, and I believe Lacan takes this very much into account, is The Interpretation of Dreams.

Beyond the Pleasure Principle : 1920g : Sigmund Freud : SE XVIII  p1-64

The Ego & the Id (‘Das Ich und das Es’): 1920 [1923]: Sigmund Freud : SE XIX p12-63 : Published by Richard G. Klein at www.Freud2Lacan.com and available here

Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego : 1921 : Sigmund Freud : SEXVIII p69-143 : 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:

The Interpretation of Dreams : 1stNovember 1899 (published as 1900) : Sigmund Freud : SE IV & V , p1 – 626 : See The Interpretation of Dreams: 1st November 1899 (published as 1900): Sigmund Freud  or here

* Lectures XVII and XXIII of the Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.

P19

* Lacan’s point of departure, the Function and Field of Speech and Language, : The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis (Rome) : 26th September 1953 : Jacques Lacan  : See here

* The first Lacanian elaboration results in a schema L, the basis of which is an X, opposing the symbolic and the imaginary. : The first reference to this schema appears to be Seminar II : 9th February 1955 : See p108-109 of Sylvana Tomaselli’s translation, Seminar II: The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis: 1954-1955: begins 17th November 1954 : Jacques Lacan: or here. It is named ‘The imaginary function of the ego and the discourse of the unconscious’

P20

* it takes as a reference On Narcissism: See On narcissism, an introduction :1914 : Sigmund Freud : Available herehttp://www.lacanianworks.net/?p=12221

p21

Lacan’s graph : This is probably a reference to the ‘graph of desire’. The development of this graph is given Seminar V : The Formations of the Unconscious : 1957-1958 : begins 6th November 1957 : Jacques Lacan or here

P22

* The schema of alienation and separation :

See p211 of Alan Sheridan’s translation Seminar XI : 27thMay 1964. See Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts: 1963-1964 : beginning 15th January 1964 : Jacques Lacan or here

See also Alienation and Separation in Seminar XI (Paris) : 1st July 1990 : Éric Laurent  Or here

* The fourth operation is the production. : This is a reference to Seminar XVII : 10thJune 1970 : pXIV 7 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : See  Seminar XVII: Psychoanalysis upside down/The reverse side of psychoanalysis: 1969-1970 : from 26th November 1969: Jacques Lacan or here

* The production of a plus-de-jouir from the signifying apparatus is demonstrable in this system. : Note, plus-de-jouir is translated as surplus : Probably Seminar XVII : 11th March 1970  : pVIII 2 & 7  of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : & Seminar XVII : 10th June 1970 : pXIV 18 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : See  Seminar XVII: Psychoanalysis upside down/The reverse side of psychoanalysis: 1969-1970 : from 26th November 1969: Jacques Lacan or here

p23-24

* Oedipus complex was received by the German troops in the First World War. (SE XVI p300)

* Lecture XVI – Psychoanalysis & Psychiatry from Introductory Lectures.

P25

The Interpretation of Dreams, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life -whileJokes and their Relation to the Unconscious remains a little to one side

The Interpretation of Dreams : 1stNovember 1899 (published as 1900) : Sigmund Freud : SE IV & V , p1 – 626 : See The Interpretation of Dreams: 1st November 1899 (published as 1900): Sigmund Freud  or here

The Psychopathology of Everyday Life : 1901 : Sigmund Freud : SE VI p 8-12 : 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

Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious: 1905 : Sigmund Freud : Published in SE VIII : 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  : available here

* What is there between these two lectures?

I will give the titles: Lecture XVIII, Fixation to Traumas - The Unconscious; XIX, Resistance and Repression; XX, The Sexual Life of Human Beings; XXI, The Development of the Libido and the Sexual Organizations; XXII, Some Thoughts on Development and Regression – Aetiology; and Lecture XXIII. Lecture XXI, Strachey puts it very well, is a summary of the Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. discovery of infantile sexuality and of the perverse traits in sexuality in 1905

P26

* Lecture XXII (SE XVI: 341)

p30

* Lecture XIX, he studies unconscious resistance

p31

* Lecture XXII (SE XVI p350)

p32

* Lacan said in Seminar XVII - the kinship between truth and jouissance  : probably the entire session Seminar XVII : 21st January 1970 and particularly, Seminar XVII : 21st January 1970 : pV 5 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Seminar XVII: Psychoanalysis upside down/The reverse side of psychoanalysis: 1969-1970 : from 26th November 1969: Jacques Lacan or here : Around this there is a whole operation of litotes whose weight and accent I try to show in what I call the not-without (pas-sans). Anxiety is not without an object. We are not without a relation to the truth. But can we be sure that we ought to find intus, within? Why not to one side?

* He does it explicitly in Seminar XX, Encore. The object is only the elaborated part of jouissance, it is the fantasmatic or semantic part of jouissance, the part of jouissance already drawn into the fantasy. : probably Seminar XX : 13th March 1973 :   : in Seminar XX: Encore: 1972 – 1973: Jacques Lacan or here : pVIII 14 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation :  There is something essential in what I am contributing as a complement to what was very well seen along paths that would be illuminated by seeing that this is what was seen, what was seen is that if only from man’s side, namely, that what man had to deal with, was the little a-object. That his whole realisation of this sexual relationship culminated in phantasy, and it was seen, of course, in connection with neurotics. How do neurotics make love? This is where we started. On this point, of course, people could not have failed to notice that there was a correlation with the perversions. This supports my little a, since this little a is that which, whatever they may be, these aforesaid perversions, is there as their cause. That seen first, which was already not bad.

The amusing thing is that Freud originally attributed them to the woman. It is very amusing to see that in the ‘Three Essays’. It is truly a confirmation that one sees in the partner, when one is a man, exactly what one is supported by oneself, if I can express myself in that way, what one is supported by narcissistically.

P33

* The Wolf Man and the question of infantile neurosis  : See From the History of an Infantile Neurosis (The ‘Wolf Man’) : 1914 [published 1918b] : Sigmund Freud : Standard Edition: Vol 17 (SE XVII): p3 or Penguin Freud Library (PFL) : Vol 9: p225 : Published at Richard G. Klein’s site www.Freud2Lacan.com and available here

* Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. There are arguments about the difference between Obsessional & Hysterical Symptpms in Inhibitions, Symptoms & Anxiety : 1926d : Sigmund Freud : XX : Available here

p34

* Rat Man, : See Sigmund Freud: Notes upon a case of Obsessional Neurosis (The ‘Rat Man’) :1909d: SE X :  p155 or Penguin Freud Library (PFL) : Vol 9 : p31

* Lecture XXII : Some thoughts on Development and Regression – Aetiology : See beginning for availability

* Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. : ibid. : p100 SE XX :The secondary defensive struggle against the symptom takes many shapes. It is fought out on different fields and makes use of a variety of methods. We shall not be able to say much about it until we have made an enquiry into the various different instances of symptom-formation. In doing this we shall have an opportunity of going into the problem of anxiety—a problem which has long been looming in the background. The wisest plan will be to start from the symptoms produced by the hysterical neurosis; for we are not as yet in a position to consider the conditions in which the symptoms of obsessional neurosis, paranoia and other neuroses are formed.

P35

* Lacan, ‘the formal envelope of the symptom’ :  See p52 of Bruce Fink’s translation of On my antecedents : 1966 : Jacques Lacan : See  Écrits : 1966 : Jacques Lacan or here : Clérembault was very familiar with the French tradition, but it was Kraepelin, whose clinical genius was of a higher caliber, who trained him. Oddly enough, but necessarily, I believe, I was thereby led to Freud. For faithfulness to the symptom’s formal envelope, which is the true clinical trace for which I acquired a taste, led me to the limit at which it swings back in creative effects. In the case included in my dissertation (the case of Aimée), there were literary effcts – of high-enough quality to have been collected, under the (reverent) heading of involuntary poetry, by Éluard.

Psychoses of passion : 1921 : Gaétan Gatian de Clérambault or here

Dementia Praecox : 1896 : Emil Kraepelin or here

‘The Case of Aimée, or Self-punitive Paranoia’: Jacques Lacan : 1932 or  here

Part 2 – p37

* The Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,

* Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming and Hysterical Fantasies and their Relation to Bisexuality, both from 1908

Creative Writers & Day-Dreaming : 6thDecember 1907 (Vienna) [1908] : Sigmund Freud : SE VII : At www.kleal.com available here : & in bi-lingual form here

Hysterical Phantasies and their Relation to Bisexuality : 1908a ;  Sigmund Freud : SE IX, pfl Vol 13

* In Lecture XXIII, Freud postulates the role of day-dreaming as the source of fantasy production, although he will soon approach it another way in a footnote 1920 to the Three Essays : Sigmund Freud: Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality: 1905d : SE VII p123-245 [p1244-1245] :  Lecture III Transformations of Puberty, The Barrier against Incest : p149 pfl, Footnote 1 :  [Footnote added 1920:] The phantasies of the pubertal period have as their starting-point the infantile sexual researches that were abandoned in childhood. No doubt, too, they are also present before the end of the latency period. They may persist wholly, or to a great extent, unconsciously and for that reason it is often impossible to date them accurately. They are of great importance in the origin of many symptoms, since they precisely constitute preliminary stages of these symptoms and thus lay down the forms in which the repressed libidinal components find satisfaction. In the same way, they are the prototypes of the nocturnal phantasies which become conscious as dreams. Dreams are often nothing more than revivals of pubertal phantasies of this kind under the influence of, and in relation to, some stimulus left over from the waking life of the previous day (the ‘day’s residues’). Some among the sexual phantasies of the pubertal period are especially prominent, and are distinguished by their very general occurrence and by being to a great extent independent of individual experience. Such are the adolescent’s phantasies of overhearing his parents in sexual intercourse, of having been seduced at an early age by someone he loves and of having been threatened with castration; such, too, are his phantasies of being in the womb, and even of experiences there, and the so-called ‘Family Romance’, in which he reacts to the difference between his attitude towards his parents now and in his childhood. The close relations existing between these phantasies and myths has been demonstrated in the case of the last instance by Otto Rank (1909).

It has justly been said that the Oedipus complex is the nuclear complex of the neuroses, and constitutes the essential part of their content. It represents the peak of infantile sexuality, which, through its after-effects, exercises a decisive influence on the sexuality of adults. Every new arrival on this planet is faced by the task of mastering the Oedipus complex; anyone who fails to do so falls a victim to neurosis. With the progress of psycho-analytic studies the importance of the Oedipus complex has became more and more clearly evident; its recognition has become the shibboleth that distinguishes the adherents of psycho-analysis from its opponents.

* Lecture XXIII L SE XVI : Quote from p373

* Freud himself postulated in several letters to Lou-Andreas Salomé that the Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis do not introduce any novelty to analysis in terms of content.

P38

* In his case history of the Wolf Man he will refer to Lecture XXIII : SE XVI: 368 : the reference in the case of the Wolf Man to Lecture XXIII, and especially to the footnote added by Freud in connection with this lecture. Freud oscillates between the traumatic value and the phantasmatic value. : From the History of an Infantile Neurosis (The ‘Wolf Man’) : 1914 [published 1918b] : Sigmund Freud : Standard Edition: Vol 17 (SE XVII): p3 or Penguin Freud Library (PFL) : Vol 9: p225 : Published at Richard G. Klein’s site www.Freud2Lacan.com and available here : quote from p57 : Originally 1 I had no intention of pursuing the discussion of the reality of ‘primal scenes’ any further in this place. Since, however, I have meanwhile had occasion in my Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis [1916-17, Lecture XXIII] to treat the subject on more general lines and with no controversial aim in view, it would be misleading if I omitted to apply the considerations which determined my other discussion of the matter to the case that is now before us. I therefore proceed as follows by way of supplement and rectification.-There remains the possibility of taking yet another view of the primal scene underlying the dream-a view, moreover, which obviates to a large extent the conclusion that has been arrived at above and relieves us of many of our difficulties. But the theory which seeks to reduce scenes from infancy to the level of regressive symbols will gain nothing even by this modification; and indeed that theory seems to me to be finally disposed of by this (as it would be by any other) analysis of an infantile neurosis.

* Lecture XXIII : SE XVI p368

p39

* J-A Miller : Now we will listen to Joan Salinas’ presentation about the varité of the symptom : See quote Seminar XXIV : 19th April 1977 : below

  1. Salinas : … one of the last sessions of the 1977 Seminar L’insu que sait de l’inconscient s’aile a moure, creates a neologism: that of varité la varité du symptôme. He makes it precisely after asking himself, quoting Freud, “in what is this (the symptom) founded – that which does not function without profiteering and in relation to which truth is supposed?” p13 : Seminar XIV : 19thApril 1977 : p111 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : See Seminar XXIV : ‘L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre’ : 1976-1977 : begins 16th November 1976 : Jacques Lacanor here : What does it mean to free associate? I am striving here to push things a little bit further. What does it mean to free associate? Is it a guarantee – it seems all the same to be a guarantee – that the subject who enunciates is going to say something which has a little bit more value? But in fact everyone knows that rationalisation, what is called that in psychoanalysis, that rationalisation has a greater weight than reasoning. What have what are called enunciations to do with a true proposition? One would have to try, as Freud enunciates, to see on what is founded this something, as Freud enunciates, to see on what is founded this something, which only functions by attrition, from which the Truth is supposed. One would have to see, to open oneself up to the dimension of truth as variablevarité, namely, of what, in condensing like that these two words, I would call the varité, with the little silent é, the varité.

For example, I am going to pose something which has indeed its price. If an analysing subject slips into his discourse a neologism, like the one I have just made for example in connection with varité, what can one say about this neologism? There is all the same something that one can say, which is that the neologism appears when it is written. And it is precisely why that does not mean, like that, automatically, that it is the Real; it is not because it is written, that this gives the weight to what I evoked earlier in connection withau pied de la lettre.

P40

* “In analysis one can surely say that the truth lies – (le vrai ment). Analysis is a long camina-miento, chemine ment (pathway of lies)”  p17 :  Seminar XXIV : 10th May 1977 : p118 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : It is starting from something that is enunciated as positive, that one writes negation. In other words, the sign is to be sought – and this indeed is what, in this agency of the letter, that I posed – is to be sought as congruence of the sign to the Real.

What is a sign that one cannot write? For one really writes this sign. I highlighted like that, at one time, the pertinence of what the French lalangue touches on as adverb. Can one say that the Real lies (ment)? In analysis, one can surely say that the True lies. Analysis is a long journey (cheminement) – one finds it everywhere – that the chemine-ne-mente (the journey does not lie) it is something which can only on occasion signal to us that, as in the wire of the telephone, that we find our footing.

And then, that such things can be put forward poses the question of what is sense. Is sense supposed to be only lying, since one can say that the notion of the Real excludes – which should be written in the subjunctive – that it excludes (qu’elle exclue) sense? Does that indicate that it also excludes the lie? This indeed is what we have to deal with, when we wager in short on the fact that the Real excludes

* Lecture XXIII : SE XVI, p. 360

p41

It is what Freud calls the “sexual as traumatic”. In this Seminar, Lacan calls this “the sexual relation which does not exist” p8 : Seminar XXIV : 19th April 1977 : p109-110 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : the Real in my notation being what it is impossible to rejoin. What his analyser, believes he is saying to the analyst in question, has nothing to do – and that, Freud noticed – has nothing to do with the truth. Nevertheless we must indeed think that to believe, is already something that exists, he says what he believes to be true. What the analyst knows, is that he is only speaking approximately about what is true, because he knows nothing about the True. Freud here, is delusional, and just enough so, for he imagines that True, is what he calls, for his part, the traumatic kernel.

Seminar XXIV : 19th April 1977 : P113-114 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Objections must be raised to the practice of psychoanalysis. Freud was a mental defective, like everyone, and like me myself on this particular occasion, in particular besides, neurotic, a sexual obsessional as has been said. It is hard to see why an obsession with sexuality would not be as valid as any other, since for the human species sexuality is quite rightly obsessive. It is in effect abnormal in the sense that I defined; there is no sexual relationship. Freud, namely, a case, had the merit of seeing that neurosis was not structurally obsessional, that it was fundamentally hysterical, namely, linked to the fact that there was no sexual relationship, that there are people disgusted by it, which is all the same a sign, a positive sign, is that it makes them vomit.

P41

* Lacan’s further development follows the route of situating a single pathway made from two different tracks, “the refraction of these truths in sense” (sens) (ibid. p. 6): Seminar XXIV : 15th March 1977 : p104 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : What I would like, is to give you the refraction of these truths in sense. One would have to manage to give an idea of a structure, which is such that it would incarnate sense in a correct way. Contrary to what is said, there is no truth about the Real, since the Real is sketched out as excluding sense. It would be still too much to say, that there is something of the Real, because, to say that, is already to suppose a sense. The word Real has itself a sense, I even at one time, played a little bit on it, I mean to invoke the things, I evoked as an echo the word reus which, as you know, in Latin means guilty; one is more or less guilty of the Real. This indeed is why moreover psychoanalysis is a serious thing, I mean that it is not absurd to say that it can slide into fraudulence.

* in the first place to connote truth as this “imaginary symbolic”, and in the second place to include in this category of truth “what has a double sense”, as Lacan calls it here, from ambiguity. It is in this respect that he refers to poetry in this Seminar. : For double sense, see quotation from Seminar XXIV : 15th Mar 1977 : p107 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation below. : the term “imaginary symbolic’ to connote truth has not been traced in Seminar XXIV, though it probably is there somewhere. Help would be appreciated. : It is possible that the quote under p41 is relevant to “imaginary symbolic”.

* I quote: “The symptom is real. It is actually the only truly real thing, that is to say, what preserves a sense in the real” (ibid., p. 9)  Seminar XXIV : 15th March 1977 : p105 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : It is therefore not surprising to enunciate in connection with this torus, with this torus which starts from a triple Borromean knot, with this torus if you reverse it, to qualify what is in the torus, in the torus of the Symbolic, as symbolically real. The symbolically real is not the really symbolic, for the really symbolic is the Symbolic included in the Real. The Symbolic included in the Real has well and truly a name, it is called the lie, whereas the symbolically real – I mean that which of the Real is connoted inside the Symbolic – this is what is called anxiety . The symptom is real; it is even the only real thing, namely, which has a sense, which preserves a sense in the Real. It is indeed for that reason that the psychoanalyst can, if he is lucky, intervene symbolically to dissolve it in the Real.

So then I am going to all the same note for you in passing what is symbolically imaginary. Well then, it is geometry; the famous mos geometricus, that so much has been made of, is the geometry of angels, namely, something which despite writing does not exist.

Seminar XXIV : 15th March 1977 : p107 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation includes the words ‘double sense’ : And what I want to designate by that, is something that I was questioned about when I spoke about full speech and empty speech. I clarify it now. Full speech, is the speech full of sense. Empty speech is one that has only meaning. I hope that Madame Kress-Rosen whose bright smile I can still [p108] see, does not see too great an inconvenience in that, I mean by that that speech can be at the same time full of sense, it is full of sense – because it starts from this duplicity drawn here – it is because the word with a double sense, which is S2, that the word sense is itself full. When I spoke about Truth, it is to sense that I refer; but what is proper to poetry when it fails, is precisely to have only a meaning, to be a pure knot of one word to another word. It nevertheless remains that the willingness for sense consists in eliminating the double sense, which can only be conceived by realising, as I might say, this cut, namely, to ensure that there is only sense, the green overlapping the red on this particular occasion.

* I quote: “the symptom is real. It is actually the only truly real thing, that is to say, what preserves a sense in the real” (ibid. p9). And he adds : “it is for this reason that the psychoanalyst can, if he is lucky, intervene symbolically to dissolve (the symptom) in the real” (ibid., p9) Of this symptom as real, as “symbolically real, that is, as something that from the real acquires a connotation in the interior of the symbolic”, he gives anguish as an example. He clearly differentiates the ‘symbolically real as truth’ from its opposite, of the “really symbolic, that is, of the symbolic included in the real” which would be what he calls the ‘lie’. : Seminar XXIV : 15th March 1977 : p105 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : It is therefore not surprising to enunciate in connection with this torus, with this torus which starts from a triple Borromean knot, with this torus if you reverse it, to qualify what is in the torus, in the torus of the Symbolic, as symbolically real. The symbolically real is not the really symbolic, for the really symbolic is the Symbolic included in the Real. The Symbolic included in the Real has well and truly a name, it is called the lie, whereas the symbolically real – I mean that which of the Real is connoted inside the Symbolic – this is what is called anxiety. The symptom is real; it is even the only real thing, namely, which has a sense, which preserves a sense in the Real. It is indeed for that reason that the psychoanalyst can, if he is lucky, intervene symbolically to dissolve it in the Real.

So then I am going to all the same note for you in passing what is symbolically imaginary. Well then, it is geometry; the famous mos geometricus, that so much has been made of, is the geometry of angels, namely, something which despite writing does not exist. …..

* Lecture XXIII : SE XIV p367 : “Sometimes, then, symptoms represent events which really took place and to which we may attribute an influence on the fixation of the libido, and sometimes they represent fantasies of the patient’s which are not, of course, suited top laying an aetiological role. It is difficult to find one’s way about in this”. (Lecture XXIII SE XVI, p. 367 )

* Freud that “the childhood experiences constructed or remembered in analysis are sometimes indisputably false and sometime certainly correct, and in the most cases compounded of truth and falsehood” (Lecture XXIII SE XVI, p. 367),

p42

* … then the correlation in Lacan is patent. He says” “What the analysand believes he says to the analyst has nothing to do – Freud realised this – with truth…. The analysand says what he believes to be true. What the analyst knows is that he speaks on the side of truth, because he is unaware of the truth” (Ornicar? p. 12). : Seminar XXIV : 19th April 1977 : p109-110 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : the Real in my notation being what it is impossible to rejoin. What his analyser, believes he is saying to the analyst in question, has nothing to do – and that, Freud noticed – has nothing to do with the truth. Nevertheless we must indeed think that to believe, is already something that exists, he says what he believes to be true. What the analyst knows, is that he is only speaking approximately about what is true, because he knows nothing about the True. Freud here, is delusional, and just enough so, for he imagines that True, is what he calls, for his part, the traumatic kernel.

* And he adds, “[truth] which he had described as what does not cease to be written, that is the symptom, is an obstacle. What the analysand says, and attempts to verify, is not the truth but the varité of the symptom” (ibid. p.14). : Seminar XXIV : 19th April 1977 : p113 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : Without that, Freud would have drawn the consequences of what he says himself that the analyser does not know his truth, since he cannot say it. Which I defined as not ceasing to be written, namely, the symptom, is an obstacle to it. I am coming back to it. What the analyser says while waiting to be verified, is not the truth, it is the varité of the symptom. One must accept the conditions of the mental in the first rank of which is debility, which means the impossibility of holding a discourse against which there is no objection, no mental one precisely.

* Lacan locates here another concept : the one that in the dimensions of the varietée of the symptom the analysand attempts ‘to prove himself’ (se verifier) : Note, I think Cormac Gallagher translates this as ‘analyser says while waiting to be verified,’ in the above quote.

* J-A Miller (“Reflexions sur l’enveloppe formelle du symptomein Actes de l’Ecole de la Cause Freudienne IX) : See Reflections on the Formal Envelope of the Symptom by Jacques-Alain Miller : Date may be October 1985…: Translated by Jorge Jauregui : published in Symptom 16 by Lacan.com and available here

* Freud’s affirmation that what is produced is a “compound of truth and falsehood” (Lecture XXIII SE XVI, p367)

P43

* chemine ment should be placed, where “truth lies”, as well as the reference to what “the analysand says waiting to be verified” (Ornicar? 17/18, p.14)  p17 : Seminar XXIV : 10th May 1977 : p118 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 :  Can one say that the Real lies (ment)? In analysis, one can surely say that the True lies. Analysis is a long journey (cheminement) – one finds it everywhere – that the chemine-ne-mente (the journey does not lie) it is something which can only on occasion signal to us that, as in the wire of the telephone, that we find our footing.

And then, that such things can be put forward poses the question of what is sense.

&

Seminar XXIV : 19th April 1977 : p113 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : Without that, Freud would have drawn the consequences of what he says himself that the analyser does not know his truth, since he cannot say it. Which I defined as not ceasing to be written, namely, the symptom, is an obstacle to it. I am coming back to it. What the analyser says while waiting to be verified, is not the truth, it is the varité of the symptom. One must accept the conditions of the mental in the first rank of which is debility, which means the impossibility of holding a discourse against which there is no objection, no mental one precisely.

* “[T]he subject… feels the alleged satisfaction as suffering and complains of it” (Lecture XXIII : SE XVI: 365-6)

* “the symptom as the way in which each one enjoys his unconscious, in so far as the unconscious determines it” (R.S.I. Ornicar? 4, p.106) : Seminar XXII : 18thFebruary 1975 : pVI 97-98 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : See Seminar XXII: R. S. I. : 1974-1975: from 19th November 1974 : Jacques Lacan  or here : So then! To try simply to note something, which will be what my notation will unfold around, it is certain that it is from an experience, from an experience of the depiction of the symptom as reflecting in the Real the fact that there is something that is not working and where, not in the Real of course, in the field of the Real, this something that does not work holds up. Holds up how? Holds up only by what I support in my language as a parlètre, from what is only a speaking being, because if he did not speak, he would not have the word being, and that to this speaking being, there is a field, a field connected to the hole that I depicted here – I apologise, I do not insist especially that my figures should be elegant, or symmetrical – it is in the measure that there is no possible opening, rupture, consistency coming from this hole, the locus of ek-sistence, Real, that the unconscious is here [VI-6] and that what here is tenuous (y fait tenue) passing behind the hole of the Real, behind on this figure, because if you turn it over, it is in front, that there is coherence, that there is consistency between the symptom and the unconscious. Except for the fact that the symptom cannot be defined otherwise than by the way in which each one enjoys the unconscious in so far as the unconscious determines it.

* “There is a path that leads back from fantasy to reality – the path, that is, of art” (Lecture XXIII : SE XVI: 375-376)

p44

* Lacan also refers to creation and, concretely, to poetry, but in a particular way. In my understanding he gives two basic references:

  1. a)  The double sense: poetry – basically in reference to the Chinese woman (‘los chinos canturrean’, ‘chantonnent”) – sustained by a double sense, is imaginarily symbolic. And that ‘imaginary symbolic’ he calls truth, given that it can only be midite, half-said.
  2. b)  The effort to make sense eliminates double sense. Along this line, Lacan says, an analysis could become “an autism à deux”.
  3. a) It has not been possible to find the reference to Chinese woman, though there are references to Chinese in these sessions of Seminar XXIV. : Seminar XXIV : 15th March 1977 : P103 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : Poetry appears to me all the same to depend on the relation of the signifier to the signified. One could say in a certain way that poetry is imaginarily symbolic, I mean that, since Madame Kress-Rosen yesterday evoked Saussure and his distinction between the tongue and speech, not moreover without noting that as regards this distinction, Saussure had wavered; it remains all the same that his starting point, namely, that the tongue is the fruit of a maturation, of the ripening of something that is crystallised in usage, it remains that poetry depends on a violence done to this usage and that, – we have proofs of this – , if I evoked, the last time, Dante and love poetry, it is indeed to mark this violence, that philosophy does everything to efface, this indeed is why philosophy is the testing ground for swindling and why one cannot say that poetry does not play, in its own way, innocently, at what I called just now, what I connoted as imaginarily symbolic, that is called the Truth.
  4. b) Seminar XXIV : 19th April 1977 : p112 of Cormac Gallagher : 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 : In short, one must all the same raise the question of whether psychoanalysis,- I beg your pardon, at least I beg the pardon of psychoanalysts – is not what one could call an autism à deux? There is already a thing which allows this autism to be forced, this precisely that lalangueis a common affair and it is precisely there that I am, namely, capable of making myself understood by everybody here, this is where the guarantee is – this is why indeed I put on the agenda the transmission of psychoanalysis – this indeed is the guarantee that psychoanalysis does not limp irreducibly from what I called just now autism à deux.

* “It is in so far as a correct interpretation extinguishes (étient) the symptom, that truth is specified as being poetic” (Ornicar?17/18, p16) : Seminar XXIV : 19th April 1977 : p116 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : It is in as much as a correct interpretation extinguishes a symptom, that the truth is specified as being poetic. It is not from the angle of articulated logic – even though on occasion I slip into it – it is not from the angle of articulated logic that we must sense the import of our saying, not at all of course that there is something which deserves to have two aspects. What we enunciate always, because it is the law of discourse, what we always enunciate as a system of opposition, is the very thing that we have to surmount, and the first thing would be to extinguish the notion of the Beautiful.

P44-45

* R.S.I., for example, he locates sense between the imaginary and symbolic : Seminar XXII : 10th December 1974 : See Seminar XXII: R. S. I. : 1974-1975: from 19th November 1974 : Jacques Lacan  or here : P6 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation refers to the Introductory Lectures : p7-8 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : That they should be three, this Real, this Symbolic and this Imaginary, what does that mean? There are two slopes. One slope, a very steep one, leads us to homogenise them; because what relationship have they among themselves? Well then! This is precisely where I want to open up the path for you this year. One could say that the Real is what is strictly unthinkable. That at least would be a start. That would make a hole in the affair and that would allow us to question what is involved in, do not forget, what I started from, namely, from three terms in so far as they convey a meaning. What is this business of meaning, especially if you introduce into it what I am striving to make you sense? The fact is that as regards what is involved in analytic practice, this is where you operate from, but on the other hand, you only work to reduce this meaning; it is in the measure that the unconscious is supported by this something, it must be said, the most difficult thing that I had to introduce, this something defined by me, structured like the Symbolic. It is from the fundamental equivocation of this something that is at stake in the term Symbolic that you always operate – I am talking to those here who are worthy of the name analyst. Equivocation is not meaning. Meaning is that through which there responds something which is different to the Symbolic, and there is no means of supporting this something otherwise than by the Imaginary.

P45

* “Equivocation is not sense”, he says, “Equivocation is fundamentally symbolic, it is in that that the unconscious is sustained such as I structure it… [whereas] sense is that by which something answers which is something other than the symbolic and that is the imaginary” (Ornicar? 2, p.91) : Seminar XXII : 10thDecember 1974 : p8 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : Seminar XXII: R. S. I. : 1974-1975: from 19th November 1974 : Jacques Lacan  or here : (See above quote) : It is from the fundamental equivocation of this something that is at stake in the term Symbolic that you always operate – I am talking to those here who are worthy of the name analyst. Equivocation is not meaning. Meaning is that through which there responds something which is different to the Symbolic, and there is no means of supporting this something otherwise than by the Imaginary. But what is the Imaginary? Does it even ek-sist? Since you hint, simply by pronouncing the term Imaginary, that there is something which ensures that the speaking being shows that he is destined for mental defectiveness. And this results from the simple notion of the Imaginary, in so far as the starting point for it is the reference to the body and to the fact that its representation, I mean everything that for it is represented, is only the reflection of its organism. It is the least of the suppositions that the body implies.

* in this Seminar he locates analytic interpretation on the side of what he calls ‘poetic writing’ : There are no references to poetic writings or Chinese women in this seminar.  There are references to Chinese poetry in Seminar XXIV : See 19th April 1977 : p115 of Cormac Gallagher : 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 : It is quite certain that writing is not that by which poetry, the resonance of the body is expressed. It is all the same quite striking that the Chinese poets express themselves by writing and that for us, what is necessary, is that we should hold onto the notion, in Chinese writing, of what poetry is, not at all that all poetry – I am talking especially about ours – that all poetry is such that we can imagine it by writing, by poetic Chinese writing; but perhaps, you will sense something in it, something which is different than what ensures that Chinese poets cannot do otherwise than write. There is something that gives the feeling that they are not reduced there, the fact is that they sing, that they modulate, the fact is that there is what François Cheng enunciated before me, namely, a tonic counterpoint, a modulation which ensures that that it is sung, for from tonality to modulation there is a slippage. That you are inspired eventually by something of the order of poetry to intervene, is indeed why I would say, it is indeed something towards which you must turn, because linguistics is all the same a science that I would say is very badly orientated. If linguistics raises itself up, it is in the measure that a Roman Jakobson frankly tackles the questions of poetics. Metaphor, and metonymy, have an import for interpretation only insofar as they are capable of [p116] functioning as something else. And this other thing that they function as, is indeed that by which sound and sense are closely united.

It is in as much as a correct interpretation extinguishes a symptom, that the truth is specified as being poetic. It is not from the angle of articulated logic – even though on occasion I slip into it – it is not from the angle of articulated logic that we must sense the import of our saying, not at all of course that there is something which deserves to have two aspects. What we enunciate always, because it is the law of discourse, what we always enunciate as a system of opposition, is the very thing that we have to surmount, and the first thing would be to extinguish the notion of the Beautiful.

* Lacan states in the end, that is, if analysis is to make true, it is so from the point of view of a “bolt of sense”, coup de sens, as a sens-blant,faire vrai, de semblant…. (Ornicar> 17/18, p.18) : Seminar XXIV : 10th May 1977 :  p120 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation – probably! : Seminar XXII: R. S. I. : 1974-1975: from 19th November 1974 : Jacques Lacan  or here : This is what I am racking my brains about. I am racking my brains and I think that when all is said and done psychoanalysis, is, is what seems true (fait vrai), but how must one understand this seems true? It is an effort at sense, but it is a sens-blance (sens blant). There is the whole distance that I designated between S2 to what it produces. It is of course the analyser who produces the analyst, there is no doubt about that. And that is why I question myself about what is involved in this status of the analyst to whom I leave this place of seeming true, of semblance, and of whom I consider, that it is moreover, there where you have seen it formerly, there is nothing easier than to slip into the bévue, I mean into an effect of the Unconscious, since it was indeed an effect of my unconscious, which means that you were good enough to consider a slip, and not as what I wanted to qualify myself, namely, the next time as a crude error.

P46

* Freud himself indicates in Lecture XXIV : Wish Fulfilment

P47

* which accounts for the plasticity of the drives, as we have seen in Lecture XXII (SE XVI, p. 345) Some Thoughts on Development and Regression – Aetiology

P48

* Lacan said in his Écrits text, “On My Antecedents” – it is the sentence that I based my presentation on the formal envelope of the symptom on: “faithfulness to the symptoms formal envelope… led me to the limit at which it swings back in creative effects” [Écrits, p.66]  : See p35 above for quote. : Further information  Écrits : 1966 : Jacques Lacan or here

* ‘In this perspective the production of a work would be something like the creation of an artificial symptom.

This is the perspective which Lacan takes in the example of his thesis in psychiatry, Aimée’s case, and which will take him many years later to Joyce’s case. ‘Le sinthome’ has its roots already in his psychiatric thesis, following this comment in 1966 regarding the formal envelope of the symptom.’

See ‘The Case of Aimée, or Self-punitive Paranoia’: Jacques Lacan : 1932 or  here

Presentation: “On James Joyce as Symptom” : 24th January 1976 (Nice) : Jacques Lacan or here

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

Joyce the Symptôm (Sinthôme) I & II : 16th June 1975 : Jacques Lacan   or here (Translations of both now available)

Lacan, ‘the formal envelope of the symptom’ :  See p52 of Bruce Fink’s translation of ‘On my antecedents’ : 1966 : Jacques Lacan : See  Écrits : 1966 : Jacques Lacan or here

P49

* Lecture XXII, Some Thoughts on Development and Regression – Aetiology, (SE XVI, p. 350)

* One cannot forget the Lacanian schema of the detour of the drive in Seminar XI, around the object a.  : Probably Seminar XI : 13th May 1964 : p178 of Alan Sheridan’s translation : see Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts: 1963-1964 : beginning 15th January 1964 : Jacques Lacan or here

* in the seminar commented on by Salinas, Lacan says that “the real is drawn”. :  Note, it has not been possible to find this exact quote – this is the nearest… : Seminar XXIV : 15th March 1977 : p104 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : What I would like, is to give you the refraction of these truths in sense. One would have to manage to give an idea of a structure, which is such that it would incarnate sense in a correct way. Contrary to what is said, there is no truth about the Real, since the Real is sketched out as excluding sense. It would be still too much to say, that there is something of the Real, because, to say that, is already to suppose a sense. The word Real has itself a sense, I even at one time, played a little bit on it, I mean to invoke the things, I evoked as an echo the word reus which, as you know, in Latin means guilty; one is more or less guilty of the Real. This indeed is why moreover psychoanalysis is a serious thing, I mean that it is not absurd to say that it can slide into fraudulence.

* Lacan puts into question in the first sentence of Seminar XX, when he says that one cannot pass in this way from jouissance to love : Not quite in either Cormac Gallagher’s translation or Bruce Fink’s : See Seminar XX: Encore: 1972 – 1973: Jacques Lacan or here : Seminar XX : 21st November 1972 : pI 1 of Cormac Galagher’s translation : I happened not to publish ‘The Ethics of Psychoanalysis’. At the time it was a form of politeness on my part – after you, be my guest, be my worst, please go ahead. (Playing on : après-vous, etc)

With time, I began to notice that I could, after all, say a little more about it, and then I realised that what my laborious journeying was about was something of the order of I don’t want to know anything about it.

There is also no doubt why, with time, I am here again and that you also are here. I am always amazed at it. Encore!

pI 3 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : So then in beginning by supposing you to be in bed, of course, I must apologise to him. Nevertheless I will stick to it today. And if I apologise for it, it is in order to remind him, to remind him that at the basis of all rights there is what I am going to talk about, namely, enjoyment. The law speaks about that. The law does not even fail to recognise this starting point, this good old common law on which the usage of concubinage is based; this means sleeping together.

Obviously I am going to start from something else, from what remains veiled in the law, namely, what we do with it – embrace one another. I start from the limit, from a limit with which one must indeed start if one is to be serious, which I have already commented on, to be able to establish the series, the series of what approaches it.

Usufruct – that is indeed a notion from law which brings together in one word what I already recalled in my seminar on ethics which I mentioned earlier, namely, the difference that there between the useful and enjoyment.

P50

* another expression of Lacan’s: unconscious formations.  : For example, Seminar V : The Formations of the Unconscious : 1957-1958 : begins 6th November 1957 : Jacques Lacan : See here

* Seminar II, he makes of the super-ego the key to the symptoms : Seminar II : possibly 19th January 1955 :  See Seminar II: The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis: 1954-1955: begins 17th November 1954 : Jacques Lacan or here : p89 of Sylvana Tomacelli’s translation : Here We rediscover what I’ve already pointed out to you, namely that the unconscious is the discourse of the other. This discourse of the other is not the discourse of the abstract other, of the other in the dyad, of my correspondent, nor even of my slave, it is the discourse of the circuit in which I am integrated. I am one of its links. It is the discourse of my father for instance, in so far as my father made mistakes, which I am absolutely condemned to reproduce – that’s what we call the super-ego. I am condemned to reproduce them because I am obliged to pick up again the discourse he bequeathed to me, not Simply because I am his son, but because one can’t stop the chain of discourse, and it is precisely my duty to transmit it in its aberrant form to someone else. I have to put to someone else the problem of a situation of life or death in which the chances are [p90] that it is just as likely that he will falter, in such a way that this discourse produces a small circuit in which an entire family, an entire coterie, an entire camp. an entire nation or half of the world will be caught. The circular form of a speech which is just at the limit between sense and non-sense, which is problematic.

P51

P52

* It is at the same level towards which Lacan points in Television, when he says that the subject is always happy.  : See Television: 31st January 1974 : Jacques Lacan  or here : p22-23 of Jeffrey Mehlman’s translation : Where in all this is what makes for good luck [bon heur)?[1]

Strictly speaking everywhere. The subject is happy-go-lucky [heureux]. It is his very definition since he can owe nothing if not to luck, to fortune in other words, and any piece of luck is good as something to maintain him, insofar as it repeats itself.

What is astonishing is not that he is happy without suspecting what reduces him to this state – his dependence on the structure – but that he gets an idea of beatitude, an idea which is forceful enough for him to feel himself exiled from it.

Happily, on this point we have the poet giving the game away: Dante, whom I’ve just cited, and others, apart from those sluts who use classicism to fill their piggy-banks.

[1] For this homophonic play on bonheur (happines), See Seminar VII: The ethics of psychoanalysis: 1959-1960: from 18th November 1959 : Jacques Lacan or here : Seminar VII : 18thNovember 1959 : p13 of Dennis Porter’s translation : “Happiness” is after all “happen [English in the original]; it, too, is an encounter,

* Freud changes the theory – here there is already something of a varité, a truth which varies. : see references to varité and truth in the above notes.

P53

P54

P55

* Lacan is placed: Why could psychoanalysis not invent a new perversion? : Seminar VII : 18th November 1959 : p15 of Dennis Porter’s translation : See Seminar VII: The ethics of psychoanalysis: 1959-1960: from 18th November 1959 : Jacques Lacan or here : No doubt something should remain open relative to the place we currently occupy in the development of erotics and to the treatment to be given, not simply to one individual or other, but to civilization and its discontents. Perhaps we should give up the hope of any genuine innovation in the field of ethics – and to a certain extent one might say that a sign of this is to be found in the fact that, in spite of all our theoretical progress, we haven’t even been able to create a single new perversion. But it would be a definite sign that we have really arrived at the heart of the problem of existing perversions, if we managed to deepen our understanding of the economic role of masochism.

Since it is useful to give oneself a goal that is attainable, that will, I hope, in the end be the point with which we will conclude this year.  :

See also Further comments on ‘perverse jouissance’: Seminar VII: session of 18th November 1959  or here by Julia Evans on 22nd October 2012

* Lacan has sketched this in The Function and Field, with the opposition between exactitude-truth and the effects of deferred-action [après-coup], discovered thanks to the case of the Wolf Man.
: See The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis (Rome) : 26th September 1953 : Jacques Lacan  : See here : p77 of Anthony Wilden’s translation : from Part III, Interpretation and Temporality : As a witness called to account for the sincerity of the subject, depositary [p78] of the minutes of his discourse, reference as to his exactitude, guarantor of his straightforwardness, custodian of his testament, scrivener of his codicils, the analyst participates in the nature of the scribe.

But above all he remains the master of the Truth of which this discourse is the progress. As I have said, it is he above all who punctuates its dialectic. And here he is apprehended as the judge of the value of this discourse. This entails two consequences

& possibly p34 of Anthony Wilden’s translation : from Part II Symbol and Language : How would the Word, in fact, be able to exhaust the sense of the Word or, to put it better, with the Oxford logical positivists, the meaning of meaning – except in the act which .engenders it? Thus Goethe’s reversal of its presence at the origin of things, “In the beginning was the action”, is itself reversed in its turn: it was certainly the verbethat was in the beginning, and we live in its creation, but it is the action of our spirit which continues that creation by constantly renewing it. And we can only turn back on that action by letting ourselves constantly be pushed further ahead by it.

I shall try it myself only in the knowledge that thatis its way….

* Discovered thanks to the Wolf Man : See From the History of an Infantile Neurosis (The ‘Wolf Man’) : Sigmund Freud : 1914[published 1918b] : Sigmund Freud : Standard Edition: Vol 17 (SE XVII): p3 or Penguin Freud Library (PFL) : Vol 9: p225 : Published at Richard G. Klein’s site www.Freud2Lacan.com and available here

P56

* Let’s move on to the fantasy, apropos of which, …the question of truth, which Lacan also touches upon in his seminar, : There are at least 4 references to Truth inSee  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 : 8th March 1977 : p100 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : I remind you that the place of semblance where I put the object…that the place of semblance is not where I articulated that of the Truth.

Seminar XXIV : 15thMarch 1977 : p103 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : if I evoked, the last time, Dante and love poetry, it is indeed to mark this violence, that philosophy does everything to efface, this indeed is why philosophy is the testing ground for swindling and why one cannot say that poetry does not play, in its own way, innocently, at what I called just now, what I connoted as imaginarily symbolic, that is called the Truth.

Seminar XXIV : 19thApril 1977 1977 : p109 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : What his analyser, believes he is saying to the analyst in question, has nothing to do – and that, Freud noticed – has nothing to do with the truth. Nevertheless we must indeed think that to believe, is already something [p110] that exists, he says what he believes to be true. What the analyst knows, is that he is only speaking approximately about what is true, because he knows nothing about the True.

Seminar XXIV : 19thApril 1977 1977 : p111 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : that the kinship in question highlights this primordial fact that it is lalangue which is at stake. It has not at all the same consequences if the analyser talks only of that because his close relations have taught him lalangue, he does not differentiate what specifies his own particular relation with his close relations. It would be necessary to perceive that what I will call on this occasion the function of truth, is in a way deadened by something prevalent, and it must be said that culture is here stifled, deadened, and that on this particular occasion, one would do perhaps better to evoke the metaphor, since culture is also a metaphor, the metaphor of the agri of the same name. It would be necessary to substitute for the agri in question the term of cultural soup, it would be better to call culture a soup of language. ….

…. What have what are called enunciations to do with a true proposition? One would have to try, as Freud enunciates, to see on what is founded this something, as Freud enunciates, to see on what is founded this something, which only functions by attrition, from which the Truth is supposed. One would have to see, to open oneself up to the dimension of truth as variable varité, namely, of what, in condensing like that these two words, I would call the varité, with the little silent é, the varité..

P57

* This is what leads Lacan to say: “One always enjoys the fantasy”. : It has not been possible to trace this reference – help would be much appreciated…

* Lacan had announced to the world the instance of a real without sense. It consists of a radical separation between the real and sense. It is such a strange idea, it produces such Befremdung, that he said: “perhaps this idea of the real is my symptom”. :  Note, it has not been possible to find this exact quote. The following give an example of a slip of the tongue by Jacq1ues Lacan : Seminar XXIV : 8thMarch 1977 1977 : p100 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : I remind you that the place of semblance where I put the object…that the place of semblance is not where I articulated that of the Truth.

How can a subject, since that is how I designated the S with the bar, $, how can a subject, a subject with all its weakness, its debility, hold the place of the Truth and even ensure that this has results? He places himself in it in this way, namely, a Knowledge.

[Cormac Gallagher’s note : To be corrected, insert arrows and bars. Note, Gallagher uses o rather than a, in the equations]

o > S2(hesitation)   o > S1

$     S1                          $     S2

Is it not like that that I wrote it at the time?

Jacques-Alain Miller : $ at the place of S1, S1at the place of S2and S2at the place of $

o > $

S2    S1

Jacques Lacan: – You see that it is easy to get confused with this!

Yes. Undoubtedly it is better like that. It is undoubtedly better like that, but it is still more troubling like that, I mean that the gap between S1 and S2 is more striking because there is something interrupted and that in short S1, is only the beginning of knowledge; but a knowledge which is content to always commence, as they say, ends up at nothing. This indeed is why, when I went to Brussels, I did not speak about psychoanalysis in the best of terms. There are some that I recognise who were there.

Seminar XXIV : 19th April 1977 1977 : p112 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : People speak about the ruse of reason; it is a philosophical idea. It was Hegel who invented that. There is not the slightest ruse of reason. There is nothing constant, contrary to what Freud enunciates somewhere, that the voice of reason was low, but that it always repeated the same thing. It only repeats things by going around in circles. In order to say things, reason repeats the symptom. And the fact that today I have to present myself before you with what is called a physical sinthome, does not prevent you from asking quite rightly whether it is not intentional, whether for example I have not got into such stupid behaviour that my symptom, however physical it may be, may be something all the same wished for by me. There is no reason to stop in this extension of the symptom because it is something suspect, whether one likes it or not. Why should this symptom not be intentional?

* Joan Salinas recalled that Lacan said that the symptom is of the order of the real. Seminar XXIV : 15th March 1977 : p105 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : 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 : ….. The symptom is real; it is even the only real thing, namely, which has a sense, which preserves a sense in the Real. It is indeed for that reason that the psychoanalyst can, if he is lucky, intervene symbolically to dissolve it in the Real.

So then I am going to all the same note for you in passing what is symbolically imaginary. Well then, it is geometry; the famous mos geometricus, that so much has been made of, is the geometry of angels, namely, something which despite writing does not exist.

P58

P59

* Freud reduced the number of fantasies to locate three essential ones” the observation of coitus, the seduction by an adult, and castration. He also presents this in the notes of the Wolf Man case. Finally, in the note of 1920 in the “Three Essays”, he stresses that all phantasmagoria can be included in the Oedipus complex, pointing out the necessary character of fantasies – he says notwendig, which I privilege over the term das Befürdnis, necessity in the sense ofbesoin. His phylogenetic solution of the existence of these fantasies is that of the pre-historical. I will allow myself to read it: the child who fantasises has done nothing more than fill the gaps of individual truth with a pre-historical truth”. He himself experiences the necessity of getting out of the historical dimension, as he did in “Totem and Taboo”.

-From the History of an Infantile Neurosis (The ‘Wolf Man’): 1914[published 1918b] : Sigmund Freud : Standard Edition: Vol 17 (SE XVII): p3 or Penguin Freud Library (PFL) : Vol 9: p225 : Published at Richard G. Klein’s site www.Freud2Lacan.com and available here : p97 (VIII) Fresh material – Solution :I will now turn from this unsatisfactory conclusion to a consideration of the problem which I have attempted in my Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis [Lecture XXIII]. I should myself be glad to know whether the primal scene in my present patient’s case was a phantasy or a real experience; but, taking other similar cases into account, I must admit that the answer to this question is not in fact a matter of very great importance. These scenes of observing parental intercourse, of being seduced in childhood, and of being threatened with castration are unquestionably an inherited endowment, a phylogenetic heritage, but they may just as easily be acquired by personal experience. With my patient, his seduction by his elder sister was an indisputable reality; why should not the same have been true of his observation of his parents’ intercourse?

– See Totem and Taboo: 1912-1913 : Sigmund Freud : SE Vol XIII : 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

* finaly in the note of 1920 in Three Essays : See p37 above

P60

This is what Lacan writes in the upper part of the graph of desire, the link between jouissance and castration. He allows the return of castration (-φ), the return upon jouissance itself. :  See notes in Seminar V : The Formations of the Unconscious : 1957-1958 : begins 6th November 1957 : Jacques Lacan or here for a detailed description of the development of the ‘graph of desire’.

* Lecture XXIII : Freud refers to it on p. 314, where he point out that the libido searches and finds its objects in the body itself; on p. 355, he said that the sexual drives are satisfied in an auto-erotic way in the body itself;

* he proposes, in pp. 328-9, a history of the oral drive (SE XVI, p.328). : There follows a quotation.

p61

* Lacan says in Seminar XX that in itself jouissance is not sexual, insofar as ‘sexual’ refers to the other sex. probably Seminar XX : 21st November 1972, but not exactly…. : in Seminar XX: Encore: 1972 – 1973: Jacques Lacan or here : pI 3 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : What purpose does the useful serve? That has never been well defined owing to the respect, the prodigious respect that thanks to language, speaking beings have for the mean. Usufruct means that you can enjoy your means but must not waste them. When you receive an inheritance you have the usufruct of it on condition that you do not use up too much of it. This indeed is the essence of law, to divide up, to distribute, to pay out what is involved in enjoyment.

But what is enjoyment? Here it si precisely what, for the moment, reduces itself for us by a negative example. Enjoyment is what is of no use. Only that does not tell us much more about it.

Seminar XX : 21st November 1972 : pI 10 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : This is how there is named the point that covers, that covers the impossibility of the sexual relationship as such. Enjoyment qua sexual is phallic. Namely, it is not referred to the Other as such.

Here I am highlighting. I am highlighting the reserve that is implied by this field of law, as regards the right to enjoyment. Right is not duty. Nothing forces anyone to enjoy, except the superego. The superego is the imperative of enjoyment. Enjoy (Jouis)! It is the commandment that starts from where? This indeed is where we find the turning point analytic discourse interrogates.

* He starts this Seminar saying: “The jouissance of the body of the Other is not a sign of love”. :  Seminar XX : 21st November 1972 : pI 4 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : I am leaving you then on this bed, to your own inspiration. I go out, and once again I will write on the door – so that as you go out you may perhaps take note of the dreams that you will have pursued on this bed – the following sentence : the enjoyment of the Other, of the Other with – it seems to me that given the time, huh, it ought to be enough for me to stop there, anyway I have sufficiently pounded your ears with this capital O that comes after, and since nowadays this O can be found everywhere, put before the other,, more or less advisedly moreover! This is printed without rhyme or reason – the enjoyment of the Other, of the body of the Other that symbolises it, is not the sign of love.

I write that, and after it I do not write the end, nor amen, nor so be it. It is not the sign; it is nevertheless the only response. What complicates matters, is that the response, is already given at the level of love, and because of this enjoyment remains a question. A question in that the response that it may constitute is not necessary at first. It is not like love. : [Note, The O for Other is usually left untranslated as A.]

* The fundamental Unheimlichkeit of jouissance is perceived in the case of Little Hans,  : see notes to p12 & 13 above

P62

* Lecture XXIII (SE XVI, p. 372) quoted

* we already have the place for which Lacan used the word extimité. :Seminar XVI : 12th March 1969 : pXIV 9 – 10 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : See Seminar XVI: From an Other to the other: 1968-1969: begins 13th November 1968: Jacques Lacan and here : I ought to recall here what I developed at length in a year that I evoked at one of our last encounters under the title of the ethics of Psychoanalysis. It articulates that the very dialectic of pleasure, namely, what it involved in terms of a level of stimulation that is at once sought and avoided, a correct level of a threshold, implies the centrality of a forbidden zone, let us say, because the pleasure would be too intense. This centrality is what I desginate as the field of enjoyment, enjoyment itself being defined as everything relating to the distribution of pleasure in the body. This distribution, its inner limit, is what conditions what at that time and of course with more words, more illustrations than I can give here, what I put forward, I designated as a vaculoe, as this prohibition at the centre that constitutes, in short, what is nearest to us, while at the same time being outside us. It would be necessary to make up the word “extimate, extime [extimité]” to designate what is at stake.

* Lacan ‘crossing the fantasy’: How it relates to the graph of desire (see previous notes) is given by Bogdan Wolf in p154 of Lacanian Coordinates : From the Logic of the Signifier to the Paradoxes of Guilt and Desire :  On the graph of desire, the crossing of the fantasy leads through the point of castration, $<> D, all the way up and round to what he calls then an “x”, the signifier of the Other’s desire. In this sense crossing the fantasy proceeds from the renunciation of jouissance which facilitates the movement of the subject across to the place of the objecta. If the castration is refused or if the loss of jouissance is refused then the subject is stuck in fantasy. It all appears like a game of snakes and ladders at this moment. Here is the way towards the lack in the Other as inconsistent, and here is the fantasy. If the inconsistency is refused, it is back to consistency of the fantasy. :

Or Owen Hewitson’s What Does Lacan Say About… The End, And Ends, of a Psychoanalysis? (Part II) : 16thJanuary 2012 : LacanonLine.com : here

P63, 64 & 65

 

  Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst, Earl’s Court, London

 

Linked texts

On the origin of the Other and the post-traumatic object : 6th November 2004 (Lyon) : Éric Laurent or here

Trauma in Reverse : 27th April 2002 (New York) : Éric Laurent or here

Quotes towards ‘Trauma : Les traumatismes dans la cure analytique’ : 9th April 2013 : Christiane Alberti & Marie-Hélène Brousse or here

Further texts

Of the clinic : here

Topology : here

On Trauma :here

By Sigmund Freud here

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud : here

By Jacques Lacan here

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here

By Jacques-Alain Miller here