472-473 / 536
THE SPEAKING BODY
Xth Congress of the WAP,
Rio de Janeiro 2016
473
472
“This God who can say ‘I,’ is the God who is a speaking–being. One does not
play a match with the God of the philosophers, but with the God who is a
speaking–being. This ‘I’ is, at the level of the unconscious, unpronounceable in
truth, and the beginning of the Seminar is taken up with the confrontation of
the unpronounceable ‘I’ with the inconsistent Other.”
p. 16-17
“It is believed that this is an attribute that particularizes man, but not only man
can efface traces, animals do it equally. What distinguishes him is: man is the
animal who can read his trace and transfer it where it didn’t exist before. The
causes are very elevated functions. We have here in some way the neologism of
the speaking–being (
parlêtre
) in genesis when it is a matter of the animal who
speaks, which Lacan will need to use later.”
p. 60
“A Reading from the
Seminar
: From an Other to the other III”
(2006). Trans.: B. P. Fulks [LI 31, 2008]
“The themes of the original trauma of the
parlêtre
marked by the foreclosure
of the sexual rapport are distinguished It is not excessive to bring up the term
parlêtre
, not introduced until years later by Lacan, since it signals that one
cannot say ‘the person’ in the place of the subject, but that a more ample seating
for the subject which involves
jouissance
as well was aimed for.”
p. 115
“Lacan poses at this moment a question and responds to it, no doubt a little
quickly, that a
sujet–supposé
, a
hupokaiménon
, is what is satisfied by the drive.
We already know in advance that the barred subject is too flimsy to be able to
be what is satisfied by drive
jouissance
; being articulated in a chain, it cannot
be made to support this function. Lacan will speak later, much later, of the
parlêtre
.”
p. 124
“The Other Side of Lacan” (2007). Trans.: B. P. Fulks [LI 32, 2008]
“In the other side of Lacan, the Other is destitute, the subject is conceptualized
from the real, from the symbolic and from the imaginary as being these three
consistencies. This is, moreover, no longer the subject of the signifier, the subject
of identification, but rather the human being characterized as
parlêtre
. This is
what remains of the primacy of language (…) There is no identification there,
but rather belonging, ownership. This is not divided along the modes of the
extremity of the unary trait, if I may say so; it is not aimed at the point of lack of
the Other subject. It has to do with love, not the love of the father, but self–love
in the sense of the love for the One–body. The
parlêtre
adores his body. This is
the most certain of what is in the three modes of identification.”
p. 63-64
“In the same fashion, the negation of the primacy of the Other brings the
absence of the sexual relationship into the order. There is no sexual relationship
between Others. Here also is the value of the term ‘solitude’ that I have
emphasized And if there is sexual relationship, when there is sexual relationship,
it can only be in relationship to an internal alterity to the structure of the
parlêtre
. We owe the famous opposition between the symptom and devastation
to this: the woman causes
sinthome
, the man makes devastation. This is how
Lacan saves the sexual relationship, by indexing it to an alterity that is internal
to the structure of the
parlêtre
. This is why he invents a geometry of sexual
relationship, completely different from the concentric space of the imaginary.
He invents the geometry of sexual relationship as rather that of the returned
glove from the special use that Joyce felt about his wife in this regard: she fits
me like a glove. Lacan then formulates that everything that subsists in the sexual
relationship in the solitude of the
parlêtre
is the geometry of the returned glove,
that is to say, what contradicts, what is not on the order of the instantaneous
concentric space of vision. Hysterization is there to function as aid, to the extent
to which Lacan defines the hysteric as the final perceptible reality of what there
is of sexual relationship. While in the practice of psychoanalysis ordered by the
symbolic, the absence of sexual relationship causes scandal, and Lacan must
explain himself with himself: in
L’Étourdit
for example, he is absolutely not
the same as in
Le sinthome
. It is rather a matter of knowing in what precarious
condition the sexual relationship is established, and it is on condition that it is
comfortable with an alterity internal to the tripartite or quadripartite structure
of the
parlêtre
. It is stripped.”
p. 69-70
“The Economics of Jouissance” (2009). Trans.: A. Alvarez [LI 38,
2011]
“Knowledge as a signifying articulation, affects the body of the speaking being
(…) by fragmenting its
jouissance
, by cutting it up until it produces the failures
which I turn into the
objet a
. The signifier affects the body of the
parlêtre
, the
speaking being, in that it fragments the bodily
jouissance
; these fragments are the
objets a.
”
p. 34
“If we take as our reference the state of wellbeing and the adjustments in
functional values which it involves –which I have already represented in
my course as a loop symbolizing the homeostatic regulation of the pleasure
principle, which has always been attached to a midpoint: neither too much nor
too little, just what is needed–
jouissance
then appears as a transgression, which
a connotation of more, a supplementary value resulting from a forcing where
the more turns easily into too much. Surplus pleasure thus communicates with
Jacques – Alain Miller