them, by a cut, by fold<strong>in</strong>g them back, by fold<strong>in</strong>g back the two cuts, if I canexpress myself <strong>in</strong> that way, concentrically, you will make what is <strong>in</strong>sidecome to the outside, and <strong>in</strong>versely, what is outside will come <strong>in</strong>side. It isvery precisely why I am struck by the fact that the highlight<strong>in</strong>g, asenvelopment, of what is <strong>in</strong>side is someth<strong>in</strong>g that is not without relevance topsychoanalysis.That psychoanalysis is attached to putt<strong>in</strong>g outside what is <strong>in</strong>side, namely,the unconscious, is someth<strong>in</strong>g which obviously has its price, has its price,but is not without pos<strong>in</strong>g some questions. Because if we suppose that thereare three tori, to call th<strong>in</strong>gs by their name, that there are three tori that arespecifically the Real, the Imag<strong>in</strong>ary and the Symbolic, what are we go<strong>in</strong>g tosee by turn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>side out, as I might say, the Symbolic?22
Everyone knows that this is how th<strong>in</strong>gs will present themselves and that theSymbolic seen from the outside as torus, will f<strong>in</strong>d itself, with respect to theImag<strong>in</strong>ary and the Real, will f<strong>in</strong>d itself hav<strong>in</strong>g to pass above this one whichis above and below this one which is below. But what do we see byproceed<strong>in</strong>g as we usually do by a cut, by a split to turn the Symbolic <strong>in</strong>sideout? This Symbolic turned <strong>in</strong>side out <strong>in</strong> this way,...here is what theSymbolic turned <strong>in</strong>side out <strong>in</strong> this way will give: it will give a completelydifferent arrangement of what I called the Borromean knot, namely, that theSymbolic will totally envelop, by turn<strong>in</strong>g the symbolic torus <strong>in</strong>side out, willtotally envelop the Imag<strong>in</strong>ary and the Real. This <strong>in</strong>deed is why the use ofthe cut with respect to what is <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the Symbolic presents someth<strong>in</strong>gwhich risks <strong>in</strong> short, at the end of a psychoanalysis, of provok<strong>in</strong>g someth<strong>in</strong>gwhich might be specified as a preference given above all to the unconscious.I mean that, if th<strong>in</strong>gs are such that th<strong>in</strong>gs are go<strong>in</strong>g a bit better like that asregards the life of each one, namely, to put the accent on this function, thisfunction of the knowledge of the une-bévue by which I translated theunconscious, th<strong>in</strong>gs can effectively be better organised. But it is all thesame a structure of an essentially different nature to the one that I qualifiedas Borromean knot. The fact that the Imag<strong>in</strong>ary and the Real should beentirely <strong>in</strong>cluded, <strong>in</strong> short, <strong>in</strong> someth<strong>in</strong>g which has come from the practiceof psychoanalysis itself, is someth<strong>in</strong>g which gives rise to a question. Thereis here, all the same, a problem. I repeat, this is l<strong>in</strong>ked to the fact that it isnot when all is said and done the same th<strong>in</strong>g, the structure of the Borromeanknot and what you will see there. Someone who has experienced apsychoanalysis is someth<strong>in</strong>g which marks a passage, which marks apassage, – of course this presupposes that my analysis of the unconsciousqua found<strong>in</strong>g the function of the Symbolic is completely acceptable. It isnevertheless a fact, the fact is apparently, and I can confirm it, apparentlythe fact of hav<strong>in</strong>g gone through an analysis is someth<strong>in</strong>g which cannot be <strong>in</strong>any case restored to the previous state, except of course by carry<strong>in</strong>g out23
- 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: is itself a hole and in a certain w
- 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 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