The Real Presence and Slipperiness of the Body (LRO 248) : 11th October 2020 : Catherine Lacaze-Paule

by Julia Evans on October 11, 2020

Originally published   https://www.lacan-universite.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ironik-42-Habeas-corpus.pdf

Translated by Janet Haney

Published

The Real Presence and Slipperiness of the Body : By Catherine Lacaze-Paule, 11th October 2020,  LRO 248   Lacanian Review Online

See https://www.thelacanianreviews.com/the-real-presence-and-slipperiness-of-the-body/   

OR

by New Lacanian School of Psychoanalysis – Messager, as Subject: [nls-messager] 3550.en/ Lacanian Review Online: The Real Presence and Slipperiness of the Body, on Date: 12 October 2020 at 09:42:57 BST

See    http://www.amp-nls.org/page/gb/49/nls-messager/0/2020-2021/4325  

OR

with Julia Evans’ notes, at www.LacanianWorksReview.net   /authors a-z or authors by date

Notes on the references   Julia Evans

[3] Lacan J., Seminar 8, Transference, text established by J.-A. Miller, transl. B. Fink, Cambridge, Polity, 2015, p. 230. Fink translates ‘fuyance’ as ‘dissonance’, which has to do with sound. We have used flight/fleeting to evoke more of the body.

See Seminar VIII : Transference : 1960-1961 : Begins 16th November 1960 : Jacques Lacan or here  

Seminar VIII : 12th April 1961 : ch16 p199-200 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation also uses fleeting : The fact is that, far from the desire of the Other, in so far as it is approached at the level of the genital phase, being able to be, be in fact ever accepted in what I would call its rhythm which is at the same time its fleetingness (as regards the child, namely that it is still a fragile desire, that it is an uncertain, premature, anticipated desire) this masks from us when all is said and done what is in question, that it is quite simply the reality at whatever level it may be of sexual desire to which, as one might say, the psychical organisation is not adapted in so far as it is psychical; the fact is that the organ (10) is not taken up, brought, approached, except as transformed into a signifier and that, because it is transformed into a signifier, it is in this that it is cut off.

[4] Ibid., p. 241. real presence  

See Seminar VIII : Transference : 1960-1961 : Begins 16th November 1960 : Jacques Lacan or here  

: Seminar VIII : 19th April 1961 : ch 17 p213 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : But before writing it I must give you a certain number of touches, of points, of indications which will put you on the path. We know the difficulty of handling the (phi) symbol in its unveiled form. It is, as I told you above, what is intolerable in it which is nothing other than the following: it is that it is not simply sign and signifier, but presence of desire. It is the real presence of desire.

&  p214 CG translation : I can only leave here as an indication in order to take it up the next time – it is that at the basis of phantasies, of symptoms, of these points of emergence where we might see the hysterical labyrinth in a way lowering its mask, we will encounter something which I would call the insult to the real presence. The obsessional, for his part also has to deal with the G> (big phi) mystery of the signifier phallus and for him also it is a question of making it manageable.   …

& We will remember the phantasy of the Ratman, imagining in the middle of the night his dead father resurrected, coming to knock on his door, and that he shows himself to him while he is masturbating: an insult here also to the real presence.

What we will call aggressivity in the obsession in always present as an aggression precisely against this form of apparition of the Other which I called at another time phallophanie – the Other in so far precisely as he may present himself as phallus.

& p223 CG translation & Seminar VIII : 26th April 1961 : I already began to articulate the last time this ^ (big phi) function of the phallus by formulating a term which is that of the real presence. This term, I think your ear is sensitive enough for you to see that I am putting quotation marks around it. Moreover I did not introduce it by itself, and I spoke about “the insult to the real presence” so that already no one could be mistaken, and we are not at all dealing here with a neutral reality.

It would be quite strange that if this real presence fulfilled the function which is the radical one that I am trying here to make you approach, had not already been located somewhere. And naturally I think that you have already perceived its homonymy, its identity with what religious dogma (the one to which we have access, I mean this name from our birth, in our cultural context) calls by this name.  The real presence, this couple of words in so far as . it constitutes a signifier, we are habituated, in a near or distant way, to hear it being murmured for a long time into our ears in connection with the Roman Catholic and Apostolic dogma of the Eucharist.

I assure you that there is no need to search very far in order to perceive that this is really on the same level as in the phenomenology of the obsessional. 

p224 CG translation : It is in the same [case] observation that, further on, we borrowed the last time the sacrilegious phantasies which consist precisely, not simply in superimposing in such a clear fashion the masculine genital organs – here it is specified for us “without there being a question of hallucinatory phenomena”,

namely well and truly as such in a signifying form – to superimpose them for that which is also for us, in the most precise symbolic fashion, identifiable to the real presence.

…….. what it is a question of is to reduce in a way this real presence, to break it, to pulverise it in the mechanism of desire, this is what the subsequent phantasies, those that I already quoted the last time, will be enough to underline. 

[5] Ibid., p. 233. 

See Seminar VIII : Transference : 1960-1961 : Begins 16th November 1960 : Jacques Lacan or here  

Seminar VIII : 12th April 1961 : p202 of Cormac Gallagher : So that you see being initiated here what I am trying to show you and to trace as a path towards that which ought to be the desire (12) of the analyst. In order that the analyst should have what the other lacks he must have nescience qua nescience, he must be in the mode of having, that he must also be also without having it, that he must be lacking in nothing for him to be as nescient as his subject. In fact, he also is not without having an unconscious. No doubt it is always beyond anything the subject knows, without being able to say it to him. He can only give him a sign, to be that which represents something for someone is the definition of the sign. Having here in short nothing other which prevents him from being this desire of the subject, except precisely knowledge, the analyst .is condemned to a false surprise. But you can be sure that he is only efficacious by offering himself to the true which untransmissible, of which he can only give a sign. To represent something for someone, is precisely here what is to be stopped, because the sign that is to be given, is the sign of the lack of the signifier. It is, as you know, the only sign which is not tolerated because it is the one which provokes the unspeakable anguish. It is nevertheless the only one which can allow the other to gain access to what is the nature of the unconscious, this “knowledge without consciousness” which you will understand perhaps today before this image in what sense, not negative but positive, Rabelais says that it is “the ruin of the soul”.

[6] Ibid., p. 246. :

See Seminar VIII : Transference : 1960-1961 : Begins 16th November 1960 : Jacques Lacan or here  

 Seminar VIII : 19th April 1961 : ch 17 p213 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : There is another, that of the obsessional, who, as everyone knows, is much more intelligent in his way of operating. If the formula of the hysterical phantasy can be written thus: [Not transferred] the substitutive or metaphorical object, over something which is hidden, namely-d) (minus phi), his own imaginary castration in his relationship with the Other, today I will only introduce and (11) begin for you the different formula of the obsessional phantasy.

But before writing it I must give you a certain number of touches, of points, of indications which will put you on the path. We know the difficulty of handling the (phi) symbol in its unveiled form. It is, as I told you above, what is intolerable in it which is nothing other than the following: it is that it is not simply sign and signifier, but presence of desire. It is the real presence of desire. 

[7] Lacan J., Seminar 5, Formations of the Unconscious, text established by J.-A. Miller, transl. R. Grigg, Cambridge, Polity, 2017, p. 53. “It is the opposition between what I will call the speaking present [le dire du présent] and the present speaking [le présent du dire]. This looks like a play on words. It’s nothing of the sort.”  : 

See Seminar V : The Formations of the Unconscious : 1957-1958 : begins 6th November 1957 : Jacques Lacan or here

Seminar V : 20th November 1957 : p40-41 of Cormac Gallagher : Let us come back once again to our witticism, and to what we must make of it. I would like to introduce you to another sort of distinction that brings us back in a way to that with which we began, namely the question of the subject.

The question of the subject, what does that mean? If what I told you a little while ago is true, if it is in so far as thought always tends to make of the subject the one who designates himself as such in the discourse, I would like you to notice that what distinguishes, what isolates, what opposes it, is something that we can define as the opposition between what I can call the Statement of the present and the present of the statement.

This looks like a play on words, it is not at all a play on words. 

Related texts

Interpretation : From Truth to Event : 2nd June 2019 (Tel Aviv) : Éric Laurent  or  here  

Announcement of title for the 2020 NLS Congress, Interpretation, From Truth to Event : 18th June 2019 : Bernard Seynhaeve or  here   

Lacanian Psychoanalysis Not Without the Body : 18th January 2020 (Dublin) : Bernard Seynhaeve (audio)  or   here     

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 

Interpretation and Truth : 1st July 1994 : Éric Laurent or here 

.

Note : If links to any required text do not work, check www.LacanianWorksExchange.net. If a particular text or book remains absent, contact Julia Evans

.

Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst,  London & Sandwich, Kent

.

Further texts

Of the clinic  here 

Lacanian Transmission  here 

Some Lacanian History  here 

Topology  here 

From LW working groups  here

By Catherine Lacaze-Paule   here   

By Sigmund Freud here 

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud  here 

By Jacques Lacan here          

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here 

By Julia Evans here