function<strong>in</strong>g as someth<strong>in</strong>g else. And this other th<strong>in</strong>g that they function as, is<strong>in</strong>deed that by which sound and sense are closely united.It is <strong>in</strong> as much as a correct <strong>in</strong>terpretation ext<strong>in</strong>guishes a symptom, that the truthis specified as be<strong>in</strong>g poetic. It is not from the angle of articulated logic – eventhough on occasion I slip <strong>in</strong>to it – it is not from the angle of articulated logic thatwe must sense the import of our say<strong>in</strong>g, not at all of course that there issometh<strong>in</strong>g which deserves to have two aspects. What we enunciate always,because it is the law of discourse, what we always enunciate as a system ofopposition, is the very th<strong>in</strong>g that we have to surmount, and the first th<strong>in</strong>g wouldbe to ext<strong>in</strong>guish the notion of the Beautiful.We have noth<strong>in</strong>g beautiful to say. A different resonance is at stake, one foundedon the witticism. A witticism is not beautiful, it depends only on an equivocation,or, as Freud said, on an economy. Noth<strong>in</strong>g is more ambiguous than this notion ofeconomy. But all the same, economy founds value. A practice without value iswhat we must establish.116
<strong>Sem<strong>in</strong>ar</strong> 11: Wednesday 10 May 1977I am rack<strong>in</strong>g my bra<strong>in</strong>s, which is already annoy<strong>in</strong>g, because I am seriously rack<strong>in</strong>gthem; but the most annoy<strong>in</strong>g th<strong>in</strong>g, is that I don’t know what I am rack<strong>in</strong>g mybra<strong>in</strong>s about. There is someone named Gödel, who lives <strong>in</strong> America and who hasenunciated the name undecidable. What is solid <strong>in</strong> this enunciation, is that hedemonstrates that there are th<strong>in</strong>gs that are undecidable. And he demonstrates iton what terra<strong>in</strong>? On what I would qualify like that, as the most mental of all thementals, I mean <strong>in</strong> what is the most mental, the mental par excellence, the highpo<strong>in</strong>t of the mental, namely, what can be counted: what can be counted isarithmetic. I mean that it is arithmetic that develops the countable. It is aquestion of know<strong>in</strong>g whether there are One’s which are un-enumerable; this is atleast what Cantor put forward. But this rema<strong>in</strong>s all the same doubtful; given thatwe know noth<strong>in</strong>g except the f<strong>in</strong>ite, and that the f<strong>in</strong>ite is always enumerable.Does this mean that the mental is weak? It is simply the weakness of what I callthe Imag<strong>in</strong>ary. The Unconscious was identified by Freud – we do not know why –the Unconscious was identified by Freud to the mental. This at least is whatresults from the fact that the mental is woven of words, between which, - it isexplicitly, it seems to me, the def<strong>in</strong>ition that Freud gives of it – between whichbévues are always possible. Hence my enunciation, that <strong>in</strong> terms of the Real thereis only the impossible. This <strong>in</strong>deed is where I come to grief: is the Realimpossible to th<strong>in</strong>k about? If it does not cease, - but here there is a nuance –, I donot enunciate that, it does not cease not to say itself, if only because the Real, Iname it as such, but I say, that it does not cease not to be written.Everyth<strong>in</strong>g that is mental, when all is said and done, is what I write by the name of‘s<strong>in</strong>thome’, s.i.n.t.h.o.m.e., namely, sign.What does sign mean? This is what I am rack<strong>in</strong>g my bra<strong>in</strong>s about. Can one saythat negation is a sign? I formerly tried to pose what is <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the agency ofthe letter. Is one say<strong>in</strong>g everyth<strong>in</strong>g by say<strong>in</strong>g that the sign of negation, which iswritten like that, [Frege’s sign for negation] should not be written? What does it117
- 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 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 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