482-483 / 536
THE SPEAKING BODY
Xth Congress of the WAP,
Rio de Janeiro 2016
483
482
What interested Lacan in the act of writing (…) was another mode of the act
(…): writing as mark, isolated trait (…) unary trait, a translation which he
invented for what he focused on in Freud’s text in relation to identification
through
einziger Zug
.”
p. 29
“Two terms correspond to these modes of writing. First, the signifier, writing
which is there in order to signify, in order to have the effect of signified; and
second, properly speaking –but very hard to speak of it properly– the letter.”
p. 30
“The signifier and the letter, that makes two, are obscured, when the letter serves
to write speech (…) but this ‘making two’ between the letter and the signifier
cannot be misunderstood when the letter spreads out, twists, as in types of
knots. Lacan’s knots are a writing, writing suitable for the
sinthome
.
p. 33
“When Lacan introduced the notion of a discourse which would not be of
the semblant, the conditional usage almost led him to believe that discourses
were condemned to be of the semblant. (…) But having constructed the cage,
having pointed out the bars, Lacan advanced towards the effective construction
of a discourse which would not be of the semblant. It was deployed (…) in the
Seminar on the
Sinthome
. He managed to find in the letter a usage which is
not a usage of semblant, which is not a usage of the signifier, which leads the
signifier to the letter which borders it.”
p. 33-34
“
Finnegans Wake
brings the signified to the stage (…) an enormous stratification
of signifieds, of resonances, which show that most of the time, one is satisfied
with a good gross signification, and then, in psychoanalysis, one manages to
make another. (…) In a free state, even if it takes a lot of work to get there, a
word can have infinite resonances. Or language is the zero stratum, sigma zero,
and with Joyce one has the idea of something like an infinite sigma.”
p. 34-35
A Reading from the Seminar: From an Other to the other II
(2007).
Trans.: B. P. Fulks [LI 30, 2007]
“There is thus a whole zone of this Seminar where he deals with what is attached
to pure speech and what is attached to pure writing, heading, after this Seminar,
in a certain fashion, more toward pure writing.”
p. 15
A Reading from the Seminar: From an Other to the other III
(2007).
Trans.: B. P. Fulks [LI 31, 2008]
“Knowledge of the drives is enough to render the sexual act problematic,
inasmuch as the drives are capable of satisfying themselves outside the sexual
goal. This is their capacity of sublimation, says Freud, and Lacan follows him
to the letter in this Seminar where he returns to his constructions of
The Ethics
of Psychoanalysis
, adding that the drives are not satisfied by exception or by re–
routing, but they are satisfied outside the sexual goal, properly speaking. We still
do not have here the premises of this antinomy between the drive and sex on
which he will begin his Seminar
Encore
. Lacan preserves here the notion that the
sexual is still on the horizon of the drive.”
p. 124-125
The Other Side of Lacan
(2007). Trans.: B. P. Fulks [LI 32, 2008]
“The term ‘real unconscious’ has not held in Lacan’s teaching, the Freudian
mark being too powerful on the term ‘unconscious’ to be able to characterize
it as real. The unconscious as Freudian is an unconscious that has meaning and
that is interpreted, while the meaning and interpretation are extinguished in
the term ‘real’. That is why–I suppose–Lacan was at an impasse with the real
unconscious. Then, the following year, he tried to propose ‘something that goes
further than the unconscious’. He did not name this something, for which we
keep the pseudonym of real unconscious. It is the real, such as in labyrinths,
vortices, the complications presented in the form of a quest in analysis.”
p. 61-62
“Thus also the notation that, for Freud, the relationships of the symbolic and
the real ‘are very ambiguous,’ and the question raised when Lacan supposes that
‘the unconscious is real’. We are close here to the famous phrase of
L’esp d’un
laps
. How do we know if the unconscious is real or imaginary? (…) It presents
an ambiguity between the two. We thus see the impeccable ordering of the three
get complicated with ambiguities and equivocations, to the point that Lacan
says that for the most part, real, imaginary and symbolic pass from one to the
other, merge, and that the absolute distinction we theorize and introduce is
only the effect of the ordering they are subjected to. This is a mental, conceptual
fabrication.”
p. 65
Pass Bis
(2007). Trans.: A. Price [PN 17, 2008]
“It’s through putting the very notion of the signifying finality of the formations
of the unconscious into question that Lacan then isolates the real unconscious,
which is an unconscious without repression.”
p. 101
From the Neurone to the Knot
(2008). Trans.: A. Price [PN 22, 2011]
“[ … ]
there is no sexual causality
. He [Lacan] said
rapport
, relation (…) to say
that there is no causality and there is no law of relation between the sexes.
Jacques – Alain Miller