this term <strong>in</strong> the fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e, s<strong>in</strong>ce that has no sense, that has no sense (sens),that has no valid sense.Madame Kress-Rosen had the goodness to say last even<strong>in</strong>g almost what Iwanted to say to someone, whom there is no longer any question of myencounter<strong>in</strong>g, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is a person that I asked to telephone me and who didnot do so – it is someone who belongs to German radio, I don’t know toowell, <strong>in</strong> truth I do not even know her name, but she asked me, apparently onthe advice of Roman Jakobson, to answer someth<strong>in</strong>g about what concernshim.My first feel<strong>in</strong>g was to say that what I call l<strong>in</strong>guisterie – Madame Kress-Rosen has given its dest<strong>in</strong>y to this appellation – that what I calledl<strong>in</strong>guisterie requires psychoanalysis to be supported. I would add that thereis no other l<strong>in</strong>guistics than the one that I call l<strong>in</strong>guisterie, which does notmean that psychoanalysis is the whole of l<strong>in</strong>guistics, events prove this,namely, that people have been do<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>guistics for a very long time s<strong>in</strong>cethe Cratylus, s<strong>in</strong>ce Donatus, s<strong>in</strong>ce Priscianus, that people have always doneit, and this moreover does not settle anyth<strong>in</strong>g s<strong>in</strong>ce I tended to say the lasttime – I noticed it <strong>in</strong> connection with this S 1 and this S 2 which are separated<strong>in</strong> the correct notation of what I called the psychoanalysis discourse. I th<strong>in</strong>kthat after all you got some <strong>in</strong>formation from the Belgians, and that the factthat I spoke about psychoanalysis as be<strong>in</strong>g able to be a fraud, has reachedyour ears, I would even say that I <strong>in</strong>sist on it <strong>in</strong> speak<strong>in</strong>g about this S 1 whichappears to promise an S 2 .It must all the same be remembered at that moment what I said concern<strong>in</strong>gthe subject, namely, the relationship of this S 1 with this S 2 . I said, at onetime, that a signifier was what represented the subject for another signifier.So then what can be deduced from that? I will all the same give you an<strong>in</strong>dication, even if only to throw some light on my route because it is notself-evident. Psychoanalysis is perhaps a fraud, but it is not just any onewhatsoever. It is a fraud that is quite correct with respect to what a signifieris. And the signifier, it should all the same be clearly noted is someth<strong>in</strong>g102
very special; it has what people call sense- effects, and it would be enoughfor me to connote S 2 , as not be<strong>in</strong>g the second <strong>in</strong> time, but as hav<strong>in</strong>g a doubledirection (sens) for the S 1 to take its place, and its place correctly. It shouldall the same be said that the weight of this duplicity of sense is common toevery signifier.I th<strong>in</strong>k that Madame Kress-Rosen will not contradict me, if she wants tooppose it <strong>in</strong> any way whatsoever, she is quite free to make a sign to me,s<strong>in</strong>ce, I repeat, I am delighted that she is there. Psychoanalysis, I would say,is no more of a fraud than poetry itself, and poetry is founded precisely onthis ambiguity of which I speak and which I qualify as double sense. Poetryappears to me all the same to depend on the relation of the signifier to thesignified. One could say <strong>in</strong> a certa<strong>in</strong> way that poetry is imag<strong>in</strong>arilysymbolic, I mean that, s<strong>in</strong>ce Madame Kress-Rosen yesterday evokedSaussure and his dist<strong>in</strong>ction between the tongue and speech, not moreoverwithout not<strong>in</strong>g that as regards this dist<strong>in</strong>ction, Saussure had wavered; itrema<strong>in</strong>s all the same that his start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t, namely, that the tongue is thefruit of a maturation, of the ripen<strong>in</strong>g of someth<strong>in</strong>g that is crystallised <strong>in</strong>usage, it rema<strong>in</strong>s that poetry depends on a violence done to this usage andthat, - we have proofs of this – , if I evoked, the last time, Dante and lovepoetry, it is <strong>in</strong>deed to mark this violence, that philosophy does everyth<strong>in</strong>g toefface, this <strong>in</strong>deed is why philosophy is the test<strong>in</strong>g ground for sw<strong>in</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>g andwhy one cannot say that poetry does not play, <strong>in</strong> its own way, <strong>in</strong>nocently, atwhat I called just now, what I connoted as imag<strong>in</strong>arily symbolic, that iscalled the Truth.This is called the Truth notably concern<strong>in</strong>g the sexual relationship, namely,that, as I put it, - perhaps the first, and I do not see why I would give myselfa title for it – there is no sexual relationship, I mean properly speak<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong>the sense that there might be someth<strong>in</strong>g to ensure that a man necessarilyrecognises a woman.It is certa<strong>in</strong> that I, that I have this weakness of recognis<strong>in</strong>g her as the (la),but I am all the same sufficiently aware to have noted that there is no the,103
- Page 1:
Seminar 1: Wednesday 16 November 19
- Page 5 and 6:
after all noticed that to consist m
- Page 7 and 8:
It would be enough for you to take
- Page 9 and 10:
There had therefore been a turning
- Page 11:
Supposing that we have a torus in a
- Page 15 and 16:
topology encourages us to do so. Th
- Page 17 and 18:
and me, and I who, in short, by din
- Page 19 and 20:
we cut it in two, the front and the
- Page 21 and 22:
is itself a hole and in a certain w
- Page 23 and 24:
Everyone knows that this is how thi
- Page 25 and 26:
Seminar 3: Wednesday 21 December 19
- Page 27 and 28:
proceed to this double cut, a doubl
- Page 29 and 30:
The inside and the outside in this
- Page 31 and 32:
egards the structure of the body, o
- Page 33 and 34:
inspired by it and its inspiration,
- Page 35 and 36:
music on you, is that it has this p
- Page 37 and 38:
from the beloved to the lover. What
- Page 39 and 40:
that the little o-object is not uni
- Page 41 and 42:
Seminar 4: Wednesday 11 January 197
- Page 43 and 44:
short I called the discourses; the
- Page 45 and 46:
It is flattened out, and in a way t
- Page 47 and 48:
astonishes me still more, is not th
- Page 49 and 50:
Seminar 5: Wednesday 18 January 197
- Page 51 and 52: see it here, namely, something that
- Page 53 and 54: namely, that everything that concer
- Page 55 and 56: Let’s see. Let us try to see here
- Page 57 and 58: - X: You can’t hear me because pr
- Page 59 and 60: Seminar 6: Wednesday 8 February 197
- Page 61 and 62: its relationship to the body that w
- Page 63 and 64: that in the position B1, would be t
- Page 65 and 66: is in the position of maintaining t
- Page 67 and 68: Effectively the problem of primary
- Page 69 and 70: which I will return later, what is
- Page 71 and 72: the object of desire is not unknown
- Page 73 and 74: that he tells the truth. You see th
- Page 75 and 76: look of the Real, there is not, for
- Page 77 and 78: accentuated by him is the search fo
- Page 79 and 80: What is happening, is it not, the d
- Page 81: grounded and articulatable way, and
- Page 84 and 85: eason is said to be purloined, whil
- Page 86 and 87: Borromean knot with that of the Ima
- Page 88 and 89: Alain Didier Weill, for his part, i
- Page 90 and 91: Seminar 8: Wednesday 8 March 1977Wh
- Page 92 and 93: shouldn’t tell you, at 7.15 at Ju
- Page 94 and 95: means that the tongue fails, that,
- Page 96 and 97: of his time as a formidable cleric
- Page 98 and 99: It is very difficult not to waver o
- Page 100 and 101: I remind you that the place of semb
- Page 104 and 105: which coincides with my experience,
- Page 106 and 107: and to put that for you in black an
- Page 108 and 109: see, does not see too great an inco
- Page 110 and 111: that exists, he says what he believ
- Page 112 and 113: In short, one must all the same rai
- Page 114 and 115: particular besides, neurotic, a sex
- Page 116 and 117: functioning as something else. And
- Page 118 and 119: mean to deny? What can one deny? Th
- Page 120 and 121: slipping from word to word, and thi
- Page 122 and 123: Seminar 12: 17 May 1977People in th
- Page 124 and 125: y writing. And writing only produce
- Page 126 and 127: not pinpointed it? He calls this a