510-511 / 536
THE SPEAKING BODY
Xth Congress of the WAP,
Rio de Janeiro 2016
511
510
makes them problematic and requires that a function be found for them,
without the aid of any established disourse, for the so-called schizophrenic.”
p. 59
Holvoet, Dominique.
Making Material from the Real
. Trans.: J.
Richards [HB 11, 2014]
“The 21st century will need some of this nonsense that comes from each analysis
brought to its conclusion so that, out of the worst that the combined discourses
of science and capitalism generate, can emerge something new, hitherto unseen,
that is unprecedented but not acephalous, that is not desubjectified but carried
by a speaking body, by a speaking-being who from its real makes material.”
p. 107
La Sagna, Phillippe.
From Plus-de-Jouir to Hyper-Jouir
. Trans.: J.
Stone [RT 6, 2011]
“The effect of anxiety that Lacan linked in 1970 to the rising to the zenith of the
object a is much more perceptible today. The
plus-de-jouir,
as a logical function
to which one is very susceptible [
sensible
] today, is quite well supported. But
the subject sees poorly how the being he is as object a could lodge itself in this
narrow, mobile, and liquid place of an always more rushed surplus enjoyment
(
plus-de-jouir
). Concerning this, one can refer to J.-A. Miller’s intervention at
Comandatuba. This rupture between the shared
plus-de-jouir
and the object a
incarnate the fact that the
speakingbeing
is rendered still more uncomfortable by
the hyper-jouir.”
p. 170
Laurent, Dominique.
Death Drive in the Feminine
. Trans.: E.
Ragland [RT 6, 2011]
“The woman, symptom of the man, supposes the definition of the sinthome as
a body event. It designates the effect of the signifier’s jouissance on the body and
comes to the place itself where Freud inscribed the drive. J.A. Miller has shown
how the term ‘partner symptom’ rises up in Lacan’s teaching as symmetrical with
the speaking being (
parlêtre
). This condensation includes the speaking being in
its dimension of semblant and the living body in the structure of
lalangue
.”
p. 81
Laurent, Éric.
Reading Gabrielle and Richard with Little Hans
(1981). Trans.: I. Curtis [PN 28, 2014]
“Lacan addresses the question of language and not of speech: are psychotics
in the field of language, or not? He responds to this with the “speaking being”
(
parlêtre
), which points out that we are all speaking beings, after all, whether we
speak or not.”
p. 80
Laurent, Éric.
Neural plasticity and the impossible inscription of the
subject
[LIC, 2014]
“In Lacan’s late teaching, the unconscious is defined as a form of knowledge
that acts directly upon the body of the speaking being. It is a break in the
representation of the subject within the signifying system. It is a knowledge
of incompatibility between the linguistic system and the body’s jouissance, a
memory of breaking points, in some sense. The body emerges from this having
been fragmented by a host of different trajectories that are stamped with
holes.”
p. 33
Requiz, Gerardo.
The Entry Into Analysis and Its Relationship to the
Analytic Act from Lacan’s Late Teaching
[LCE, 2(3), 2012]
“Relating the entry into analysis to the analytic act means practically going
through the latest development about transference, the use of interpretation, the
question of causality, the position of the analyst in the treatment, the movement
from the concept of the subject of the unconscious to that of the speaking being
(
parlêtre
) and especially the link between the end of analysis and the beginning
of it.”
p. 2
Sokolowsky, Laura.
Desire of the Mother as Sinthome
. Trans.: J.
Conway [PN 29, 2015]
“The two works on homosexualities recently published in our field show the way
in which the Lacanian psychoanalytic orientation welcomes parlêtres and their
makeshift solutions for jouissance [
bricolages de jouissance
]. The clinic of the
parlêtre falls within the domain of invention and contingency.
The distinction between the subject of the signifier and the parlêtre has been
explained by Jacques-Alain Miller in
Conclusion des Leçons du Sinthome
(…).
Stressing that the subject does not only encounter jouissance in the form of
the object in the fantasy, J.-A. Miller stressed that the parlêtre has a body and
that this body is the condition sine qua non for enjoyment. Unlike the subject
previously theorized by Lacan, the parlêtre is not lack of being [
manque-à-être
];
it includes the being that, up to this point, the fantasy used to give him.”
p. 117
Authors of the Freudian Field