458-459 / 536
THE SPEAKING BODY
Xth Congress of the WAP,
Rio de Janeiro 2016
459
458
“I shall indicate from which end one could project a serious follow-up,
understood as serial, to what can be claimed by the unconscious in such an
effect (…).
And if ever this weakness, as reject of the unconscious, ends in psychosis, there
follows the return to the real of that which is rejected, that is, language; it is the
manic excitation through which such a return becomes fatal.”
p. 22
“Affect, therefore, befalls a body whose essence it is said is to dwell in language
–I am borrowing plumage which sells better than my own– affect, I repeat,
befalls it on account of its not finding dwelling-room, at least not to its taste.
This we call moroseness, or equally, moodiness. Is this a sin, a grain of madness,
or a true touch of the real?”
p. 23-24
“Why couldn’t the family, society itself, be creations built from repression?
They’re nothing less. That, however, may be because the unconscious ex–sists, is
motivated by the structure, that is, by language (…).
Now this analytic discourse implies a promise: to promote a novelty. And that,
awesomely enough, into the field from which the unconscious is produced, since
its finesses [
impasses
] –among other situations to be sure, but it is still the main
one– come into play in the game of love.”
p. 28
“This contains an explication, an unfolding of what the name only dimly pins
down. Namely: that through the transference the subject is attributed to the
knowledge that gives him his consistency as subject of the unconscious, and it is
that which is transferred onto the analyst, namely, this knowledge inasmuch as it
does not think, or calculate, or judge, but carries with it nonetheless the work-
effect.”
p. 29
“My discourse doesn’t allow the question of what one is able to know, since it
begins by presupposing this as the subject of the unconscious.”
p. 36
“What’s at stake now is what we can escape with the help of the real-of-the-
structure: what in language is not a number [
chiffre
]
,
but a sign to decipher
[
dechiffrer
]
(…).
The subject of the unconscious, on the contrary, gears into the body.”
p. 37
“But how could a better fit be found for it than this object I’ve mentioned, if
it be the very product of this matheme whose site is related to the structure, as
long as the latter be language [
l’en–gage
]
,
the language pawned [
l’en-gage
]
to the
mute by the unconscious? (…)
This requires only that somewhere the sexual relation cease not being written,
that contingency be established (so to speak), so as to make headway on that
which will later be completed by demonstrating such a relation to be impossible,
that is by instituting it in the real.”
p. 39
“Psychoanalysis would allow you, of course, the hope of refining and clarifying
the unconscious of which you’re the subject. (…)
Anyway, the analytic discourse excludes the you who’s not already in
transference, since it exposes this relation to the subject supposed to know–
which is a symptomatic manifestation of the unconscious.”
p. 43
“And if the unconscious does not think, nor calculate, etc., it makes it all the
more thinkable.
You will catch it by surprise, in rehearing, if you can, what I was modulating for
fun in my example of what can be known. Better, still–relying less on the good
luck of
lalangue
than bidding it up into language… ”
p. 46
“Columbia University: Lecture on the Symptom” (1975). Trans.: A.
Price and R. Grigg [C/C]
“The experience consists in the fact that from the origins there has been a
relationship with
lalangue
that deserves to be called, rightly, the mother tongue,
because it’s from the mother that the child, as it were, receives it.”
p. 12
“I mean that a body has another way of consisting than what I was just referring
to as a spoken form, in the form of the unconscious, in so far as it is from
speech, as such, that it emerges. These are marks whose trace we can see in the
unconscious. These are marks that have been left by a certain way of relating to
knowledge that constitutes the fundamental substance of the unconscious.”
p. 14-15
“Proposition of 9 October 1967 on the Psychoanalyst of the School”
(1967). Trans.: R. Grigg
[An 6, 1995]
“In this change of tack where the subject sees the assurance he gets from this
fantasy, in which each person’s window onto the real is constituted, capsize,
what can be perceived is that the foothold of desire is nothing but that of a
désêtre
, disbeing.”
p. 9
“The third facticity, real, all too real, sufficiently real for it to be the case that
the real is more prudish than language about promoting it, is what the term
‘concentration camp’ renders speakable, on which it seems that our thinkers, in
drifting from humanism to the terror, have not sufficiently concentrated”
p. 12
Jacques Lacan