454-455 / 536
THE SPEAKING BODY
Xth Congress of the WAP,
Rio de Janeiro 2016
455
454
“(…) ‘The unconscious is not the fact that being thinks’ –though that is implied
by what is said thereof in traditional science– ‘the unconscious is the fact that
being, by speaking, enjoys, and’, I will add, ‘wants to know nothing more about
it.’ I will add that that means ‘know nothing about it at all’.”
p. 104-105
“
Writing is thus a trace in which an effect of language can be read (
se lit
)
.
”
p. 121
“Enunciating that sentence, ‘I ask you to refuse what I offer you,’ I could only
motivate it by the ‘that’s not it’ that I took up again last time.
‘That’s not it’ means that, in the desire of every demand, there is but the request
for object
a
, for the object that could satisfy jouissance. The latter would then be
the
Lustbefriedigung
presupposed in what is improperly called the ‘genital drive’
in psychoanalytic discourse, that drive in which the full, inscribable relationship
of the one with what remains irreducibly the Other is supposedly inscribed (…)
I have diversified into four causes, insofar as the cause is constituted diversely,
according to the Freudian discovery, on the basis of the object of sucking, the
object of excretion, the gaze, and the voice. It is as substitutes for the Other that
these objects are laid claim to and made into the cause of desire.”
p. 126
“That which is written –what would that be in the end? The conditions of
jouissance. And that which is counted– what would that be? The residues of
jouissance. Isn’t it by joining that a-sexual up with what she has by way of
surplus jouissance –being as she is, the Other, since she can only be said to be
Other– that woman offers it to man in the guise of object
a
?
Man believes he creates –he believes believes believes, he creates creates creates.
He creates creates creates woman. In reality, he puts her to work– to the work
of the One. And it is in that respect that the Other –the Other insofar as the
articulation of language, that is, the truth, is inscribed therein– the Other must
be barred, barred on the basis of (
de
) what I earlier qualified as the One-missing.
That is what S(A) means. It is in that respect that we arrive at the point of
raising the question how to make the One into something that holds up, that is,
that is counted without being.
Mathematization alone reaches a real –and it is in that respect that it is
compatible with our discourse, analytic discourse– a real that has nothing to do
with what traditional knowledge has served as a basis for, which is not what the
latter believes it to be –namely, reality– but rather fantasy.
The real, I will say, is the mystery of the speaking body, the mystery of the
unconscious.”
p. 131
II /b.3 Other publications
“Letter to D. W. Winnicott”
(1960),
[TV]
“Let us say that the passivity implied in the verb
to signify
must be reversed, and
it must be imagined that the signifier marks the real as much and more than it
represents it.”
p. 76
“Introduction to
The Names-of-the-Father”
(1963), [TV]
“Concerning which may be said what I have gradually accustomed you to
understand: that a God is something one encounters in the real, inaccessible.”
p. 90
“Responses to Students of Philosophy”
(1966), [TV]
“
That is why the question of an initial error in philosophy imposes itself as
soon
as Freud has produced the unconscious on the stage he assigned to it (‘the other
stage’, as he calls it) and accords it the right to speak. (…)
That right, I say, is held by the unconscious by dint of what it structures as
language, and I would clarify the illumination without end with which Freud
allows that fact to reverberate if you had asked me the question organized
around the terms: the unconscious
and the subject.”
p. 108
“Only my theory of language as structure of the unconscious can be said to be
implied by Marxism, if, that is, you are not more demanding than the material
implication with which our most recent logic is satisfied, that is, that my theory
of language is true whatever be the adequacy of Marxism, and that it is needed
by it, whatever be the defect that it leaves Marxism with.”
p. 111-112
“Now the subject of the unconscious is a
spoken
being, and that is the being of
man; if psychoanalysis is to be a science, that is not a presentable object.”
p. 114
“Television”
(1973), [TV]
“I always speak the truth. Not the whole truth, because there’s no way, to say
it all. Saying it all is literally impossible: words fail. Yet it’s through this very
impossibility that the truth holds onto the real.”
p. 3
“The precondition of the unconscious is language.”
p. 5
[Manuductio, J.–A.M.]
“This still leaves the category of
homme-sick
animals, thereby called domestics
[
d’hommestiques
], who for that reason are shaken, however briefly, by
unconscious, seismic tremors.”
p. 5
Jacques Lacan