Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland
Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland Seminar XXIV Final Sessions 1 - Lacan in Ireland
Alain Didier Weill, for his part, it is not that he substitutes himself, heidentifies himself to Bozef. He feels himself, he feels himself in the Passe,it is rather curious that he could, in a way in this writing, find, as I mightsay, the call that answered for me, made me answer by the Passe.The Real that is at stake, is the knot in its entirety. Since we are speakingabout the Symbolic, it must be situated in the Real. There is, for this knot, acord. The cord is also corps-de (body-of). This corps-de, is parasited on bythe signifier; for the signifier though it forms part of the Real, it is indeedthere that I am right to situate the Symbolic, one must think of thefollowing, which is that we might well have dealings with this corps-de onlyin the dark. How could we recognise, in the dark, that it is a Borromeanknot? That is what is at stake in the Passe. ‘I know that he knows’, what canthat mean except to objectify the unconscious, except for the fact that theobjectification of the unconscious necessitates a redoubling, namely, that ‘Iknow that he knows that I know that he knows’. It is on this condition alonethat analysis holds onto its status. This is what creates an obstacle to thissomething which, by limiting itself to ‘I know that he knows’, opens thedoor to occultism and telepathy. It is because of not having sufficientlygrasped, sufficiently well grasped the status of anti-knowledge, namely, ofthe anti-unconscious, in other words of this pole, of this pole whichconsciousness is, that Freud allowed himself from time to time to be tickledby what have since been called ‘psy’ phenomena, namely, that he allowedhimself to slip quite gently into delusion, in connection with the fact thatJones gave him his visiting card immediately after a patient had casuallymentioned Jones’ name.The Passe that is at stake, I only envisaged in a tentative way, as somethingwhich means nothing but a ‘recognising one another’, if I can expressmyself in that way, on condition that we insert into it an ‘a-v’ after the firstletter ‘recognising one another between knowledge (se reconnaître entres(av)oir)’. Are there tongues that are an obstacle to the recognition of theunconscious? This is something that was suggested to me as a question bythe fact that this ‘c’est toi’, in which would have Bozef communicating with88
the King in this moment, that he imputed to me quite wrongly, thanks to thefact that he picked up the term communion somewhere in my Ecrits. ‘C’esttoi’, are there tongues in which this could be a ‘toi sait’ of the verb savoir,namely, something which would put the toi, which would have it slip intothe third person.All of this to advance, to say that it is really divinatory that Alain DidierWeill was able to link what I call the Passe to The purloined letter. There issurely something worthwhile here, something that consists in theintroduction of Bozef. Bozef walks around in it, as I really indicated in thevery text of The purloined letter; as I really indicated – I talk all the time, onevery page, of something which is on the point of happening, it even goes asfar as being the point at which I end – that a letter always arrives at itsdestination, namely, that it is in short addressed to the King, and that is whyit has to get to him. That, in all of this text, I speak of nothing but that,namely, of the imminence of the fact that the King gets to know about theletter, is this not to say, namely, to put forward, that he knows it already?Not alone does he know it already, but I would say that he ‘recognises’ it.Is not ‘this recognition’ very precisely what can ensure the behaviour of theQueen and King?That is what I wanted to say to you today.89
- 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 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
the K<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this moment, that he imputed to me quite wrongly, thanks to thefact that he picked up the term communion somewhere <strong>in</strong> my Ecrits. ‘C’esttoi’, are there tongues <strong>in</strong> which this could be a ‘toi sait’ of the verb savoir,namely, someth<strong>in</strong>g which would put the toi, which would have it slip <strong>in</strong>tothe third person.All of this to advance, to say that it is really div<strong>in</strong>atory that Ala<strong>in</strong> DidierWeill was able to l<strong>in</strong>k what I call the Passe to The purlo<strong>in</strong>ed letter. There issurely someth<strong>in</strong>g worthwhile here, someth<strong>in</strong>g that consists <strong>in</strong> the<strong>in</strong>troduction of Bozef. Bozef walks around <strong>in</strong> it, as I really <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong> thevery text of The purlo<strong>in</strong>ed letter; as I really <strong>in</strong>dicated – I talk all the time, onevery page, of someth<strong>in</strong>g which is on the po<strong>in</strong>t of happen<strong>in</strong>g, it even goes asfar as be<strong>in</strong>g the po<strong>in</strong>t at which I end – that a letter always arrives at itsdest<strong>in</strong>ation, namely, that it is <strong>in</strong> short addressed to the K<strong>in</strong>g, and that is whyit has to get to him. That, <strong>in</strong> all of this text, I speak of noth<strong>in</strong>g but that,namely, of the imm<strong>in</strong>ence of the fact that the K<strong>in</strong>g gets to know about theletter, is this not to say, namely, to put forward, that he knows it already?Not alone does he know it already, but I would say that he ‘recognises’ it.Is not ‘this recognition’ very precisely what can ensure the behaviour of theQueen and K<strong>in</strong>g?That is what I wanted to say to you today.89
Change language