all be superimposed on the one who produces on the stage and I return to Bozef.And on that I end.Bozef therefore, at S(Ø) is <strong>in</strong> the position of be<strong>in</strong>g a Passer, but he is not <strong>in</strong> theposition of bear<strong>in</strong>g witness from where he is pass<strong>in</strong>g. What can account for hisposition, I ask you, from where he speaks, if not this concatenation of graphs thatI have drawn for you – I unfortunately was not able to f<strong>in</strong>ish them – that I drewfor you on the board. If this hypothesis is true, namely, if the Passer, this writ<strong>in</strong>g,these graphs function as Passers <strong>in</strong> that they testified from the locus ofenunciat<strong>in</strong>g strictly articulated to enunciation which is the Passer, s<strong>in</strong>ce it is notBozef? I would simply answer and I would say that fundamentally the Passer isthe writer of the one who has put <strong>in</strong> place, who has written this writ<strong>in</strong>g, thesegraphs. I would even say that the example, if <strong>Lacan</strong> says he never ceases pass<strong>in</strong>gthe pass it is perhaps for this reason; he does not cease and we can imag<strong>in</strong>e thathe will never cease; he does not cease because sem<strong>in</strong>ar after sem<strong>in</strong>ar he creates,he resurrects the Passer, which is his writ<strong>in</strong>g, namely, that he creates theconditions of his division. He creates like Bozef at a given moment on his journeywith his back to the wall, puts himself <strong>in</strong> the place of the transmitter <strong>in</strong> order tomake himself at the same time an emitter and a transmitter <strong>in</strong> the violet arrowwhen he renounces the <strong>in</strong>termediary, <strong>Lacan</strong>, sem<strong>in</strong>ar after sem<strong>in</strong>ar, creat<strong>in</strong>g andrecreat<strong>in</strong>g his Passer, can effectively not cease to pass the pass, all the more sothat the Other to whom he addresses himself is certa<strong>in</strong>ly not a jury from which heexpects some sort of Amen. Yes. I imag<strong>in</strong>e the negative reactions that will bethrown back at me, of say<strong>in</strong>g that a writ<strong>in</strong>g could play the function of a Passer fora jury; I <strong>in</strong>cidentally learned from Jean Clavreul, that this is a proposition that hehad made, some years ago, to th<strong>in</strong>k of this notion of a writ<strong>in</strong>g as a Passer; theobjection that will be made immediately to me is to say; to make a Passer out of awrit<strong>in</strong>g, effectively, is a matter then of mak<strong>in</strong>g a report, a report why not anacademic masters? Naturally, the response that I would give immediately to thiscontradictor, would be to say that if the one who writes, if the Other to whom headdresses himself is identifiable to a jury, effectively what he will produce willeventually effectively be perhaps an excellent report but effectively academic. If<strong>in</strong> this writ<strong>in</strong>g he bears witness, as I th<strong>in</strong>k I have tried to do, of the locus of theway <strong>in</strong> which an enunciation and an enunciat<strong>in</strong>g are articulated topologically <strong>in</strong> a80
grounded and articulatable way, and that besides what is articulated betweenthese the l<strong>in</strong>es, Passes the presence that corresponds to the writ<strong>in</strong>g, the hereticalrespond<strong>in</strong>g presence, which for its part is the guarantee that it is not an academicwrit<strong>in</strong>g, but effectively a writ<strong>in</strong>g that creates the topological arrangements whereat the same time a parl’être assumes, <strong>in</strong>deed lives at the same time his division ofPasser-pass<strong>in</strong>g.Good <strong>in</strong> conclusion what I would tell you, is that it is for noth<strong>in</strong>g other than thevery consequences of this hypothesis of work that did not authorise me to makethe Passe as it functions topologically <strong>in</strong> this moment <strong>in</strong> the Freudian school, thatmade me produce what appears to me to be someth<strong>in</strong>g like this Passer which isthis writ<strong>in</strong>g, which, by its topological arrangement puts <strong>in</strong> place, has allowed meto account for a possible transmissible articulation between the two ‘I’s’. Towhom this writ<strong>in</strong>g was dest<strong>in</strong>ed before I did it, I knew strictly noth<strong>in</strong>g before Dr<strong>Lacan</strong> asked me to speak to you about it.81
- 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: What is happening, is it not, the d
- 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