Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland
Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland
y writing. And writing only produces something in mathematics, namely, therewhere people operate by formal logic, namely, by the extraction of a certainnumber of things that one defines, that one defines principally as axiom, and thatone only operates quite brutally by extracting these letters, for they are letters.Yeah, this is not at all a reason for people to believe that psychoanalysis leads oneto write one’s memoirs. It is precisely because there is no memoir of apsychoanalysis that I am so embarrassed. There is no memoir, that does notmean that memory is not involved in this affair. But to write one’s memoirs is adifferent matter. Everything depends on a metaphor, namely, that peopleimagine that memory, is something which is imprinted; but there is nothing to saythat this metaphor is valid. In his project, Entwurf, Freud articulates veryprecisely, the impression of what remains in memory. Because we know thatanimals remember is not a reason that it should be the same for man.What I enunciate in any case, is that the invention of a signifier is somethingdifferent to memory. It is not that the child invents; he receives this signifier, andthis is even what would make it worthwhile to make more of them. Why wouldwe not invent a new signifier? Our signifiers are always received. A signifier forexample which would not have, like the Real, any kind of sense. We do not know,it would perhaps be fruitful. It would perhaps be fruitful, it would perhaps be ameans, a means of shocking, in any case. It is not that people do not try. That iseven what the witticism consists of, it consists in using one word for anotherusage than the one for which it is made. In the case of famillionnaire, onecrumples this word; but it is not in this crumpling that its operational effectconsists.In any case there is a thing that I risked operating in the sense of a metatongue,the metatongue about which just now I was interrogating Julia Kristeva. Themetatongue in question consists in translating Unbewusst, by une-bévue, this hasabsolutely not the same sense; but it is a fact, the fact is that once a man isasleep, he une-bévue’ s at full tilt, and without there being any inconvenience,apart from the case of somnambulism. Somnambulism is inconvenient, when onewakens when one wakens the somnambulist, if he is walking on the rooftops, he124
may have an attack of vertigo, but in truth the mental illness which is theUnconscious does not wake up. What Freud enunciated and what I want to say, isthe following: that in no case is there an awakening. Science, for its part, can onlybe indirectly evoked on this occasion, it is an awakening, but a difficult andsuspect awakening. It is not sure that one is awake, unless what is presented andrepresented has, as I have said, no kind of sense. Now everything that isenunciated, up to the present, as science, is suspended on the idea of God.Science and religion go very well together. It’s a Dieu-lire! But this does notpresuppose any awakening. Luckily, there is a hole. Between the social delusionand the idea of God, there is no common measure. The subject takes himself tobe God, but he is impotent to justify that a signifier can be produced, a signifier Sindex 1, and still more impotent to justify that this S 1 , index 1, represents him foranother signifier, and that it is through this that there pass all the effects of sense,which are right away blocked up, are in an impasse. There you are.Man’s trick, is to stuff all of that, as I told you, with poetry which is a sense effect,but also a hole-effect. It is only poetry, as I told you, which permits interpretation,and that is why I no longer manage, in my technique, to get it to hold up; I am notenough of a pouâte, I am not pouâteassez!There you are. That is to introduce the following, in connection with which wepose questions. The definition of neurosis, we must all the same be sensible andnotice that neurosis depends on social relations. We shake up the neurosis alittle, and it is not at all sure that in that way we cure it. Obsessional neurosis forexample, is the principle of conscience. And then there are also bizarre things.There is someone called Clérambault who noticed one day, -- God knows how hefound that! – that there was somewhere mental automatism. There is nothingmore natural than mental automatism. That there should be voices, - voices,where do they come from? They come necessarily from the subject himself – thatthere are voices which say: ‘She is wiping her bottom’, one is stupefied that thisderision – since to all appearances there is derision –, does not happen moreoften. For my part, I saw, at my presentation of ill people, as they say, if in factthere are ill people, I saw a Japanese, a Japanese who had something which hehimself called a thought-echo. What would a thought-echo be if Clérambault had125
- 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 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 126 and 127: not pinpointed it? He calls this a
may have an attack of vertigo, but <strong>in</strong> truth the mental illness which is theUnconscious does not wake up. What Freud enunciated and what I want to say, isthe follow<strong>in</strong>g: that <strong>in</strong> no case is there an awaken<strong>in</strong>g. Science, for its part, can onlybe <strong>in</strong>directly evoked on this occasion, it is an awaken<strong>in</strong>g, but a difficult andsuspect awaken<strong>in</strong>g. It is not sure that one is awake, unless what is presented andrepresented has, as I have said, no k<strong>in</strong>d of sense. Now everyth<strong>in</strong>g that isenunciated, up to the present, as science, is suspended on the idea of God.Science and religion go very well together. It’s a Dieu-lire! But this does notpresuppose any awaken<strong>in</strong>g. Luckily, there is a hole. Between the social delusionand the idea of God, there is no common measure. The subject takes himself tobe God, but he is impotent to justify that a signifier can be produced, a signifier S<strong>in</strong>dex 1, and still more impotent to justify that this S 1 , <strong>in</strong>dex 1, represents him foranother signifier, and that it is through this that there pass all the effects of sense,which are right away blocked up, are <strong>in</strong> an impasse. There you are.Man’s trick, is to stuff all of that, as I told you, with poetry which is a sense effect,but also a hole-effect. It is only poetry, as I told you, which permits <strong>in</strong>terpretation,and that is why I no longer manage, <strong>in</strong> my technique, to get it to hold up; I am notenough of a pouâte, I am not pouâteassez!There you are. That is to <strong>in</strong>troduce the follow<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> connection with which wepose questions. The def<strong>in</strong>ition of neurosis, we must all the same be sensible andnotice that neurosis depends on social relations. We shake up the neurosis alittle, and it is not at all sure that <strong>in</strong> that way we cure it. Obsessional neurosis forexample, is the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple of conscience. And then there are also bizarre th<strong>in</strong>gs.There is someone called Clérambault who noticed one day, -- God knows how hefound that! – that there was somewhere mental automatism. There is noth<strong>in</strong>gmore natural than mental automatism. That there should be voices, - voices,where do they come from? They come necessarily from the subject himself – thatthere are voices which say: ‘She is wip<strong>in</strong>g her bottom’, one is stupefied that thisderision – s<strong>in</strong>ce to all appearances there is derision –, does not happen moreoften. For my part, I saw, at my presentation of ill people, as they say, if <strong>in</strong> factthere are ill people, I saw a Japanese, a Japanese who had someth<strong>in</strong>g which hehimself called a thought-echo. What would a thought-echo be if Clérambault had125
Change language