486-487 / 536
THE SPEAKING BODY
Xth Congress of the WAP,
Rio de Janeiro 2016
487
486
III /b.2 Other publications
Lacan with Joyce: The Seminar of the Clinical Section of Barcelona
(1996). Trans.: Ph. Dravers [PN 13, 2005]
“Joyce was compelled to put the relation between sound and sense down black
on white, for he was not totally protected from the echoes by The–Name–
of–the–Father, any more than he could protect his own daughter who was
schizophrenic. Writing functioned as a screen to prevent him from the infinite
echoes of language. His being was his symptom.”
p. 27-28
Interpretation in Reverse
(1996), [LL]
“What Lacan christened as
object
petit a
is indeed the ultimate waste of a
grandiose attempt, the attempt to integrate
jouissance
in the structure of
language–even if it meant extending this structure to the structure of discourse.
Beyond this, another dimension opens up, where the structure of language is
itself relativised and merely appears as an elaboration of knowledge [
savoir
] on
lalangue
. The term ‘signifier’ fails to grasp what is at stake, since it is designed
to grasp the effect of the signified and struggles to account for the
jouissance
produced.”
p. 6
“Psychosis, here as elsewhere, strips the structure bare. Just as mental
automatism exposes the fundamental xenopathy of speech, so the elementary
phenomenon is there to manifest the original state of the subject’s relation to
lalangue.
The subject knows that what is said [
le dit
] concerns him, that there is
some signification, although he does not know which one.
This is why, at this point precisely, as he advances in the other dimension
of interpretation, Lacan resorts to
Finnegan’s Wake
, namely, to a text that
unceasingly plays on the relations between speech and writing, sound and sense,
a text full of condensations, equivocations, homophonies, but nevertheless has
nothing to do with the old unconscious. In
Finnegan’s Wake
, every quilting point
is made obsolete. This is why, despite heroic efforts, this text can neither be
interpreted nor translated. That’s because it is not itself an interpretation, and it
wonderfully brings the subject of reading back to perplexity as the elementary
phenomenon of the subject in
lalangue
.
(…) What we still call ‘interpretation’, although analytic practice is ever more
post–interpretative, is revealing no doubt, but of what if not of an irreducible
opacity in the relation of the subject to
lalangue.
And this is why interpretation
–this post-interpretation– is no longer, if we are to be precise, a punctuation.”
p. 8
Psychotic Invention
(1999). Trans.: A. R. Price [HB 8, 2012]
“[Lacan refers] to the trauma that the signifier of
lalangue
and its jouissance
invariably produce, to the trauma that
lalangue
produces for a subject. In
the late phase of his teaching, Lacan even turns this into the kernel of the
unconscious. The kernel of the unconscious is the fact that people were speaking
around you, and their signifiers were invested in and traumatised you. When
one searches, this is what one finds definitively as a kernel. This is precisely
the trauma of the signifier, the enigmatic signifier, the jouissance signifier,
which calls upon a subjective invention. This invention is an invention of
meaning, which is always more or less a delusion. There are the delusions of
the established discourses, and then there are delusions that have truly been
invented. But a delusion is an invention of meaning.”
p. 263
The Analytic Session
(2000). Trans.: V. Voruz and B. Wolf [PN 10,
2003]
“What does Lacan demonstrate? He demonstrates that speaking generates the
Other as a locus. Speaking supposes a position of speech. Speaking always poses
itself as truth and, in posing itself as truth, speech moves away from itself and
towards another locus, the locus of the Other, which is at the same time the
locus of its address and the locus of its inscription. (…)
The function of language is deducted from the field of language, and this field
has the value of locus of the Other. It is a locus that is materialised by writing in
so far as it requires a surface for inscription whereas, conversely, the address of
speech fades away in writing–hence the delocalisation of address it entails.”
p. 22
Presentation of Book VI of the Seminar of Jacques Lacan
(2013).
Trans.: A. R. Price [HB 10, 2013]
“It is thus a question of the subject–object relation in unconscious desire that
Lacan names fantasy. The true title of
Seminar VI
, I would say, is
Desire and
Fantasy
, at least this is what I have concluded from my reading and editing.
Here, fantasy is in the singular. It is not a question of the subject’s reveries, it is
not a question of the stories that the subject tells himself or tells his analyst, it
is a question of a relation
that
remains unconscious. (…) It is in this seminar
that we encounter just once, the expression ‘the fundamental fantasy’ (…) and it
will reappear again, just once, ten years later when Lacan comes to develop the
theory of the pass as the end of analysis, the theory of the pass as the traversal of
the fantasy.”
p. 26
Jacques – Alain Miller