494-495 / 536
THE SPEAKING BODY
Xth Congress of the WAP,
Rio de Janeiro 2016
495
494
Lacan until it unfolds in the Seminar
Encore
. This is the mystery that joins the
jouissance
classically called autoerotic of the body itself with the
jouissance
that
attaches itself to the relation with the sexual partner: there is, on the one hand,
the
jouissance
of the body itself, that one puts in quotations, in suspension,
which is even on occasion vilified as autoerotic
jouissance
, and which is attached
to the different orifices of the body itself, and the
jouissance
that attaches itself to
the relation with the sexual partner.”
p. 32-33
“A Reading from the Seminar: From an Other to the other III”
(2006). Trans.: B. P. Fulks [LI 31, 2008]
“The place of the Other is here seen as the body–a surprise no doubt for the
listeners–not as an abstract function, but the body as place of inscription of
signifiers. Supported by a whole library of anthropological works that show in
effect the attention and importance accorded to everything that can decorate, or
mutilate or hook into or scar the body.”
p. 128
“A Reading from the Seminar: From an Other to the other IV”
(2007). Trans.: B. P. Fulks [LI 32, 2008]
“The first
jouissance
, pulled from her own body, is always there. One does not
wager that one, one does not put it into play. It is at the same time ‘inaugural
and existent’. This way of stating it is rather striking. It exists, it is not a question
of whether it exists outside. It is inaugural. As if the
jouissance
of the being of the
woman as such were more
jouissive
, always remaining for her, than the
jouissance
of the male being. He contrasts the efforts and the detours of autoerotic
jouissance
for the male, where for the woman he assumes it is simple. A typology
of
jouissances
is certainly audible here, but I doubt that it would be audible
elsewhere in the same terms, since the radical constructionists would see there a
biologization of these categories.”
p. 32
“
Jouissance
1, the
jouissance
of the woman, Lacan poses as auto–sufficient. It is
not a matter of proof, but of selection of the phenomenon which is provided as
evidence. The
jouissance
of the woman is perfectly sufficient unto itself, and it is
no doubt–one finds this also in clinical practice–what often elicits the jealousy
of the male, so that he perceives that his status is only that of an instrument,
while the
jouissance
of the woman is auto-sufficient: she seems to be on call;
however, there is a zone in which she is alone.”
p. 32-33
“At this juncture is where Lacan proposes that what is characteristic of the
traumatic scene is that the body is perceived there as separated from
jouissance
.
‘The function of the Other here is incarnated, it is the body. It is the body
perceived as separated from
jouissance’
.
This separation of the body from
jouissance
makes
jouissance
rather like that of
the Other, and we know traumatism, the traumatisms that come from an Other
forcing and imposing his
jouissance
on your body. The regime of violation, of
penetration or forced touching is certainly what is most traumatic.”
p. 40
“From the Neurone to the Knot” (2008). Trans.: A. Price [PN 22,
2011]
“For Lacan, in his most classic period, before he took it apart, the material
basis was the structure of language, the one for which he thought he could
demonstrate that it sustains the symptom in the psychoanalytic sense, where
ultimately the symptom turns out to be related to a signifying structure that
determines it.”
p. 117
“The very term ‘subject’ which Lacan brought into psychoanalysis, if considered
in a reflection from the standpoint of cognitivism, has this value of breaking the
relationship of lining between what is psychical and what is organic. This is why
Lacan was able to say that he accepted the Aristotelian definition of the soul as
the body’s form, and in a certain way the mirror–stage is a genesis of the soul in
the Aristotelian sense. It is the paradigm illustration the emergence of the soul.
(…)
The subject involved in Lacan is not the psychical subject, in the same way
that the knowledge involved in the unconscious has nothing to do with the
knowledge as it is brought into function in cognitivism, as information, which is
the object of memory storage, the object of learning, or the object of pedagogy.
(…) the knowledge involved in the unconscious, as Lacan would say, is housed
elsewhere. It is housed in discourse, in a discourse where the unconscious is
interrogated through the mode of deciphering (…)
One can sense that even though Freud borrowed from biology, it is not of
course on the basis of biology that the death drive can be isolated. This can
only be done as a function of discourse, i.e., in the guise of the function of
repetition. This does not imply in the least a negation of the real of the body.
(…) it implies—widening one of Lacan’s propositions—that the integrations are
always fragmented. Lacan said as much of the body image. Even the access to
the total form of the body does not cancel out the initial fragmentary relation to
the body…”
p. 118
Jacques – Alain Miller