which co<strong>in</strong>cides with my experience, namely, that I do not recognise allwomen. There is no such th<strong>in</strong>g, but is all the same necessary to say that thisis not self-evident; There is no such th<strong>in</strong>g, unless it is <strong>in</strong>cestuous – this isvery exactly what Freud put forward – there is none such except <strong>in</strong>cestuous,I mean that, - what Freud said -, the fact is that the Oedipus myth designatesthe follow<strong>in</strong>g, that the only person that one wants to sleep with, is one’smother, and as regards the father, one kills him. It is even all the moreprobable that one knows neither who is your father and your mother, it isexactly why the myth of Oedipus has a sense; he killed someone that he didnot know and he slept with someone that he had not the slightest idea washis mother, it is nevertheless like that that th<strong>in</strong>gs happened accord<strong>in</strong>g to themyth, and what that means, is that the only true th<strong>in</strong>g is castration. In anycase with castration, one is quite sure of escap<strong>in</strong>g it, as all this so-calledGreek mythology designates clearly for us, namely, that the father, it is notso much his murder which is at stake as his castration, that castration passesby way of murder and that, as regards the mother, the best th<strong>in</strong>g that one cando with her, is to cut it off to be quite sure of not committ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>cest.What I would like, is to give you the refraction of these truths <strong>in</strong> sense. Onewould have to manage to give an idea of a structure, which is such that itwould <strong>in</strong>carnate sense <strong>in</strong> a correct way. Contrary to what is said, there is notruth about the Real, s<strong>in</strong>ce the Real is sketched out as exclud<strong>in</strong>g sense. Itwould be still too much to say, that there is someth<strong>in</strong>g of the Real, because,to say that, is already to suppose a sense. The word Real has itself a sense, Ieven at one time, played a little bit on it, I mean to <strong>in</strong>voke the th<strong>in</strong>gs, Ievoked as an echo the word reus which, as you know, <strong>in</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> means guilty;one is more or less guilty of the Real. This <strong>in</strong>deed is why moreoverpsychoanalysis is a serious th<strong>in</strong>g, I mean that it is not absurd to say that itcan slide <strong>in</strong>to fraudulence.There is someth<strong>in</strong>g that must be noted <strong>in</strong> pass<strong>in</strong>g, which is that, as I po<strong>in</strong>tedout the last time to Pierre Soury – the last time, I mean <strong>in</strong> his own place, atJussieu, the one of which I spoke to you the last time – I po<strong>in</strong>ted out to himthat the reversible torus from which he approaches the Borromean knot is104
someth<strong>in</strong>g which, for the knot <strong>in</strong> question, presupposes that one s<strong>in</strong>gle torusis reversed. Not at all, of course, that one cannot reverse others, but then itis no longer a Borromean knot. I gave you an idea of that by a little draw<strong>in</strong>gthe last time.It is therefore not surpris<strong>in</strong>g to enunciate <strong>in</strong> connection with this torus, withthis torus which starts from a triple Borromean knot, with this torus if youreverse it, to qualify what is <strong>in</strong> the torus, <strong>in</strong> the torus of the Symbolic, assymbolically real. The symbolically real is not the really symbolic, for thereally symbolic is the Symbolic <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the Real. The Symbolic<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the Real has well and truly a name, it is called the lie, whereasthe symbolically real – I mean that which of the Real is connoted <strong>in</strong>side theSymbolic – this is what is called anxiety. The symptom is real; it is even theonly real th<strong>in</strong>g, namely, which has a sense, which preserves a sense <strong>in</strong> theReal. It is <strong>in</strong>deed for that reason that the psychoanalyst can, if he is lucky,<strong>in</strong>tervene symbolically to dissolve it <strong>in</strong> the Real.So then I am go<strong>in</strong>g to all the same note for you <strong>in</strong> pass<strong>in</strong>g what issymbolically imag<strong>in</strong>ary. Well then, it is geometry; the famous mosgeometricus, that so much has been made of, is the geometry of angels,namely, someth<strong>in</strong>g which despite writ<strong>in</strong>g does not exist. I formerly teasedthe Reverend Father Teilhard de Chard<strong>in</strong>, a good deal by po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g out tohim that if he was so keen on writ<strong>in</strong>g, he should recognise that angelsexisted. Paradoxically Reverend Father Teilhard de Chard<strong>in</strong> did not believe<strong>in</strong> them, he believed <strong>in</strong> man, hence his bus<strong>in</strong>ess about the hom<strong>in</strong>isation ofthe planet. I do not see why one would believe more <strong>in</strong> the hom<strong>in</strong>isation ofanyth<strong>in</strong>g whatsoever than <strong>in</strong> geometry. Geometry explicitly concerns theangels and for the rest, namely, as regards structure, there reigns only oneth<strong>in</strong>g, which is what I call <strong>in</strong>hibition. It is an <strong>in</strong>hibition that I attack, I meanthat I worry about, I concern myself about everyth<strong>in</strong>g that I br<strong>in</strong>g you hereas structure, a concern which is simply l<strong>in</strong>ked to the fact that a genu<strong>in</strong>egeometry is not what one th<strong>in</strong>ks, one that depends on pure spirits, as muchas one that has a body, that is what we mean when we speak about structure,105
- 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 102 and 103: this term in the feminine, since th
- 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