The Seventh Chapter of Seminar VI : 26th April 2014 : Francisco-Hugo Freda

by Julia Evans on April 26, 2014

The ninth contribution for the Blog of the next NLS Congress in Ghent on 17 and 18 May 2014, brings you the English translation of a very interesting text by Francisco-Hugo Freda. F.-H. Freda poses the hypothesis of a relation between the knotting of the three registers, as elaborated later by Lacan through the Borromean knot, and the crossing of the fantasy.

Circulated as [nls-messager] 1025.en/ THE BLOG TOWARDS THE NLS CONGRESS n° 9 / BLOG POUR LE CONGRES 2014 DE LA NLS n°9 : 26th April 2014 20:05

Published by New Lacanian School of Psychoanalysis : NLS Messenger 1025.en

The Seventh Chapter of Seminar VI  (7th January 1959 : p78 of Cormac Gallager’s translation : Availability  here)

Posted on April 26, 2014 by NLS

By Francisco-Hugo Freda

Translated by Raphael Montague

Available here

 Pointing to English translations of the references

Additional Reference : S. Freud, A Child is Being Beaten, 1919, trans. J. Strachey, SE: XVII, PFL Vol 10.

[1] Lacan J., Le Séminaire, livre VI, Le désir et son interprétation, Paris, éditions de La Martinière, 2013, p. 139 & sq : Seminar VI : 7th January 1959 : p78 of Cormac Gallager’s translation : Availability  here

[2] Ibid, p. 140. : Seminar VI here : 7th January 1959 : (Probably p78 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation : The fundamental fact of the demand with its imprinting, restraining, oppressing effects on the subject who is there and of whom it is precisely a question of seeing whether with regard to this function which we reveal as being formative, according to the formation of the genesis of the subject, whether we are adopting the correct attitude, I mean the one which in the final analysis is going to be justified. Namely the elucidation on the one hand and the removal at the same time of the symptom. It is in fact clear that if the symptom is not simply something which we should consider as being the legacy of a sort of subtraction, of suspension which is called frustration, if it is not simply a sort of deformation of the subject, however he is envisaged, under the influence of something which is measured out in function of a certain relationship to the real – as I have said it is always to something real that an imaginary frustration is referred – if it is not that, if between what we discover effectively in analysis as its results, its consequences, its effects, indeed its lasting effects, its impressions of frustrations and the symptom there is something else, involving an infinitely more complex dialectic, and which is called desire; if desire is something which can only be grasped and understood at the most tightly knotted point, not from some impressions left by the real, but at the most subtle point where there is knotted together, for the real man, the imaginary and its symbolic meaning. Which is precisely what I tried to show. And this is why the relationship of desire to phantasy is expressed here in the intermediary field between the two structural lines of every signifying enunciation.

[3] Ibid, p. 345. Probably Seminar VI here : 8th April 1959 : p206 of Cormac Gallagher’s translation :

This is the great secret: there is no Other of the Other. In other words for the subject of traditional philosophy, this subject subjectivises himself indefinitely. If I am in everything I think, I am in so far as I think that I am, and so on, this has no reason to stop. The truth is that analysis teaches us something quite different. The fact is that it has already been glimpsed that it is not so sure that I am in so far as I think, and that one can only be sure of one thing, which is that I am in so far as I think that I am. Certainly that. Only what analysis teaches us is that I am not the one who precisely is in the process of thinking that I am, for the simple reason that because of the fact that I think that I am, I think in the locus of the Other; I am different to the one who thinks that I am.

But the question is that I have no guarantee of any kind that this Other, through what there is in his system, can give me if I may express myself in this way, what I gave him: his being and his essence as truth. There is no, I have told you, Other of the Other. There is not in the Other, any signifier which is able on this occasion to answer for what I am. And to say things in a transformed way, this hopeless truth that I spoke to you about a while ago, this truth which is the one that we encounter at the level of the unconscious, is a faceless truth, is a closed truth, is a truth which can be bent in every direction. We only know it too well. It is a truthless truth.