Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland

the word that scores a bulls eye with you, one can say that opens to the maximumthis dimension of primal repression – how then can this signifier maintain thiscontradiction of maintaining this gap and at the same time be what ceases not tobe written, for example a very banal note in the diachronic scale a completelystupid lah?You see that this wager nevertheless, is what is realised in our third moment ofthe S(Ø), of which one could say that the production, of this S(Ø), is the result ofan ultimate dialectic between the subject and the Other through which the oneand the other, by becoming two as I might say, resurrect literally in a movementof encounter – through which, I repeat, Lacan has not hesitated to employ theword of communion, in the production of the witticism – this very bar, this verybar whose paradox is to associate and to disassociate at the same time. Fromthis, if you wish, from this encounter of the subject and the Other, somespecifications, three specifications: first of all it is a matter of a communion, it isnot a matter of collaboration. We know what the subject is capable of when hebecomes a collaborator. Another point: this mode of communion which isproduced in S(Ø) is a mode in which, at that moment, the subject does not receivehis message in an inverted form since it would be the only unlikely moment,outside time, really outside time, in which the Other would communicate in thesame knowledge at the same time. When I say knowledge, it is precisely theknowledge of this bar of this non-being. You see that the experience of this lackof being at S(Ø) – and precisely you have to distinguish between aphanisis whichfor its part is one could say an excommunication of the subject – here it is not amatter of being, here one could say that effectively it is a matter of a communionin non-being and that it is in this putting in common of the signifier of S 2 and ofthe signifier lacking to the Other that there is delivered this signifier that Iarticulated and that I am now going to articulate more closely to the Passe.One might say if you wish, that the bar of the subject and of the Other, bycommunicating together, carried the subject into the incandescence of thisshared lack to the very sources of existence, well beyond the object way beyondthe phantasy. The very fact that along this path the subject renounces thephantasy, short-circuits it, demonstrates, at that moment, that what is76