means that the tongue fails, that, <strong>in</strong> short, it is a farcical tongue? The Frenchtongue is no less farcical than the others, it is uniquely because we have ataste for it, have practiced it, that we consider it as superior. It has noth<strong>in</strong>gsuperior about it <strong>in</strong> any way whatsoever. It is exactly like Algonqu<strong>in</strong> orCoyote (sic), it is no better. If it were worth more, one might say of it whatDante enunciates somewhere, he enunciates this <strong>in</strong> someth<strong>in</strong>g he wrote <strong>in</strong>Lat<strong>in</strong> and he calls it Nom<strong>in</strong>a sunt consequentia rerum.The consequence, consequence mean<strong>in</strong>g on this particular occasion what?It can only mean the real consequence, but there is no real consequence,s<strong>in</strong>ce the Real, as I symbolised it by the Borromean knot, the Real vanishes<strong>in</strong>to a dust cloud of tori because, of course, these two tori here <strong>in</strong>side theother are unknotted. They are unknotted and this means that the Real, atleast <strong>in</strong> the way that we believe we can represent it, the Real is only l<strong>in</strong>kedby a structure, if we pose that structure, means noth<strong>in</strong>g but the Borromeanknot. The Real is <strong>in</strong> short def<strong>in</strong>ed as be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>coherent <strong>in</strong>sofar as it isprecisely structure.All of this does noth<strong>in</strong>g more than specify the conception that someone,who happens on this particular occasion to be me, has of the Real. The Realdoes not constitute a universe, except by be<strong>in</strong>g knotted to two otherfunctions. That is not reassur<strong>in</strong>g, it is not reassur<strong>in</strong>g because one of thesefunctions is the liv<strong>in</strong>g body.94
We do not know what a liv<strong>in</strong>g body is. It is an affair which for our part wehave to leave to God. I mean that – <strong>in</strong>sofar as what I am say<strong>in</strong>g has a sense- what I mean is that I read a thesis which, bizarrely, was produced <strong>in</strong> 1943.Don’t go look<strong>in</strong>g for it, because you will never get your hands on it, youwill never get your hands on it, because you are here much more numerousthan the number of the copies of the thesis that came out, it is the thesis ofsomeone called Madele<strong>in</strong>e Cavet who was born <strong>in</strong> 1908, the thesis specifiesit, namely, about 7 years after me, and what she says is not foolish. Shesees perfectly well that Freud, is someth<strong>in</strong>g absolutely confused <strong>in</strong> which, aswe say, a cat would not f<strong>in</strong>d its kittens. And she takes a measure, sheevokes on this particular occasion the work of Pasteur.Pasteur is a funny bus<strong>in</strong>ess. I mean that up to him – for after all it is fromhim that this comes – up to him people believed <strong>in</strong> what can be calledspontaneous generation, namely, that people believed that, to abandon –here lay the apparent foundation – to abandon a liv<strong>in</strong>g body, naturally th<strong>in</strong>gsstarted to swarm all over it, I mean that it swarms with what are calledmicro-organisms, as a result of which people imag<strong>in</strong>ed that these microorganismscould grow on anyth<strong>in</strong>g whatsoever. It is quite certa<strong>in</strong> that, ifyou leave a glass <strong>in</strong> the open air, there are th<strong>in</strong>gs that fall <strong>in</strong>to it and thateven, on occasion, make what is called a culture. But what Freuddemonstrated, what Pasteur demonstrated – this slip has all its value, giventhe sense of the thesis of the aforesaid Madele<strong>in</strong>e Cavet – what Pasteurdemonstrated, is that, on condition simply of putt<strong>in</strong>g a little cotton wool atthe mouth of a vase, th<strong>in</strong>gs do not start to swarm <strong>in</strong>side and this ismanifestly one of the simplest demonstrations of non-spontaneousgeneration.But then that presupposes strange th<strong>in</strong>gs. Where do these micro-organismscome from? We are reduced <strong>in</strong> our own day to th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g that they comefrom nowhere. It is as good as say<strong>in</strong>g that it is God who fabricated them. Itis very, very annoy<strong>in</strong>g that people should have abandoned this openness tospontaneous generation which was <strong>in</strong> short a rampart aga<strong>in</strong>st the existenceof God. For us, our friend Pasteur was moreover considered by the doctors95
- 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 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 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