Index of post
Chart of Vel, Aut, Vel of Alienation by Richard Klein
Vel as in Seminar XI by Julia Evans
Commentary on Alienation and Separation in Seminar XI by Éric Laurent
Some other texts on Lacan’s use of Mathematics and Topology
***
Chart of Vel, Aut, Vel of Alienation by Richard Klein
Richard Klein’s chart can be downloaded from www.Freud2Lacan.com /Lacan (120. Sem. XI—Vel [Inclusive] is no. 2; Vel [Exclusive or Aut] is no. 10; the Vel of Alienation is no. 9—1964, May 27)
This includes all 16 logical operators with their Venn diagrams and truth tables. Richard Klein has constructed this chart as he could not find anything which resembled it in the literature.
So, Jacques Lacan uses (see the text from Seminar XI below)
The Vel operator (Inclusive or) is no. 2 on this chart
The Aut (Exclusive or) is no.10 on this chart
The Vel of Alienation (your money or your life) is no. 9 on this chart.
Richard Klein notes further that it has been shown that all 16 operators can be generated by the Sheffer stroke, where it was thought before that, that it required either (the – operator with the vel), or (the – operator with the and) to generate all 16 operators.
From the internet
And in keeping with the computer model, alienation becomes a binary movement, an alternation of opposites. Lacan describes it as a vel, an ‘or’. It is an alternative in which choosing one term of the opposition results either in the ‘fading’, the aphanisis, of the other term, or in the destruction of both.
Bannet, E.T. (1989). Lacan and the Alienation of Language. In: Structuralism and the Logic of Dissent. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19744-6_2
***
Vel as in Seminar XI by Julia Evans
From a trawl through Seminar XI.
For further information see Seminar XI The Four Fundamental Concepts (1963-1964) : from 15th January 1964 : Jacques Lacan at this site /4 Jacques Lacan, (19640115 or index of Jacques Lacan’s texts)
-P203 of 27th May 1964, Alan Sheridan’s translation of Jacques-Alain Miller’s chapter headings :
THE SUBJECT AND THE OTHER:
ALIENATION
Sexual dynamics • Aphanisis • The Piagetic error • Vel • Your money,
or your life! • The why?
-P209-214 of 27th May 1964, Alan Sheridan’s translation Seminar XI
This includes a definition of the 3 forms of vel
P209
The rim process, the circular process, the relation in question is to be supported by the small losange that I used as algorithm in my graph precisely because it is necessary in integrating some of the finished products of this dialectic.
It is impossible not to integrate it, for example, in phantasy itself—it is $ ◊ a [barred S, punch, petit a]. It is impossible not to integrate it also in that radical node in which are conjoined demand and drive, designated by the $ ◊ D [barred S, punch, capital D], which might be called the cry.
Let us keep with this little losange. It is a rim, a functioning rim. One has only to provide it with a vectorial direction, here anti-clockwise—this is governed by the fact that, at least in our writing, you read things from left to right.
DIAGRAM OMMITTED
Be careful! They are supports for your thought that are not without artifice, but there is no topology that does not have to be supported by some artifice—it is precisely the result of the fact that the subject depends on the signifier, in other words, on a certain impotence in your thinking.
The small V of the lower half of the losange, let us say here that it is the vel constituted by the first operation, where I wish to leave you for a moment.
p210
Yet the solution is very simple, it is that the signifier with which one designates the same signifier is evidently not the same signifier as the one with which one designates the other—this is obvious enough. The word obsolete, in so far as it may signify that the word obsolete is itself an obsolete word, is not the same word obsolete in each case. This ought to encourage us to develop this vel that I have introduced to you.
The subject is grounded in the vel of the first essential operation. To be sure, it is not at all without interest to develop it here, before so vast an audience, since it is a question of nothing less than that operation that we call alienation.
P210-212
Alienation consists in this vel, which—if you do not object to the word condemned, I will use it—condemns the subject to appearing only in that division which, it seems to me, I have just articulated sufficiently by saying that, if it appears on one side as meaning, produced by the signifier, it appears on the other as aphanisis.
There is a vel that is worth illustrating, in order to differentiate it from the other uses of the vel, of the or. There are two of them. You know, from your earliest lessons in logic, that there is the exclusive vel—I go either there or there—if I go there, I do not go there, I have to choose. There is another way of using vel—I go to one side or the other, I don’t care, one’s as good as the other. These two vels are not alike. Well, there is a third, and in order not to mislead you, I will tell you straight away what it is intended for.
Symbolic logic, which is very useful in bringing a little light into so tricky a domain, teaches us to distinguish the [p211] implications of the operation that we call joining. To speak as one speaks when it is a question of sets, adding two collections together is not identical to joining them. If in this circle, that on the left, there are five objects, and if, in the other, there are also five—adding them together makes ten. But some of them may belong to both circles. If there are two that belong to each of the two circles, joining them together will in this instance consist not in doubling their number—there will be in all only eight objects. I apologize if I am being naive in reminding you of this, but it is in order to give you the notion that this vel that I will try to articulate for you is supported only on the logical form of joining.
The vel of alienation is defined by a choice whose properties
DIAGRAM OF Alienation MISSING
depend on this, that there is, in the joining, one element that, whatever the choice operating may be, has as its consequence a neither one, nor the other. The choice, then, is a matter of knowing whether one wishes to preserve one of the parts, the other disappearing in any case.
Let us illustrate this with what we are dealing with here, namely, the being of the subject, that which is there beneath the meaning. If we choose being, the subject disappears, it eludes us, it falls into non-meaning. If we choose meaning, the meaning survives only deprived of that part of non-meaning that is, strictly speaking, that which constitutes in the realization of the subject, the unconscious. In other words, it is of the nature of this meaning, as it emerges in the field of the Other, to be in a large part of its field, eclipsed by the disappearance of beIng, induced by the very function of the signifier.
[P212] This, as I have said, has a quite direct implication that passes all too often unperceived—when I tell you what it is, you will see that it is obvious, but for all that it is not usually noticed. One of the consequences is that interpretation is not limited to providing us with the significations of the way taken by the psyche that we have before us. This implication is no more than a prelude. Interpretation is directed not so much at the meaning as towards reducing the non-meaning of the signifiers, so that we may rediscover the determinants of the subject’s entire behaviour.
P212
One cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of some such thing as I have just described for you here. This alienating or is not an arbitrary invention, nor is it a matter of how one sees things. It is a part of language itself. This or exists. It is so much a part of language that one should distinguish it when one is dealing with linguistics. I will give you an example at once.
Your money or your life! If I choose the money, I lose both. If I choose life, I have life without the money, namely, a life deprived of something. I think I have made myself clear.
It is in Hegel that I have found a legitimate justification for the term alienating vel. What does Hegel mean by it? To cut a long story short, it concerns the production of the primary alienation, that by which man enters into the way of slavery. Your freedom or your life! If he chooses freedom, he loses both immediately—if he chooses life, he has life deprived of freedom.
P213
It can also be the freedom to die of hunger—in fact, that’s what it amounted to throughout the nineteenth century, which is why, since then, certain principles have had to be revised. You choose freedom. Well! You’ve got freedom to die. Curiously enough, in the conditions in which someone says to you, freedom or death!, the only proof of freedom that you can have in the conditions laid out before you is precisely to choose death, for there, you show that you have freedom of choice.
At this moment, which is also a Hegelian moment, for it is what is called the Terror, this quite different division is intended to make clear for you what is, in this field, the essence of the alienating vel, the lethal factor.
Given the time, I can do no more here than introduce the second operation. It completes the circularity of the relation of the subject to the Other, but an essential twist is revealed in it.
Whereas the first phase is based on the sub-structure of joining, the second is based on the sub-structure that is called intersection or product. It is situated precisely in that same lunula** in which you find the form of the gap, the rim.
[**JE notes that lunula is the white half-moon shape in our nails]
The intersection of two sets is constituted by the elements that belong to the two sets. It is here that the second operation in which the subject is led by this dialectic takes place. It is as essential to define the second operation as the first, because it is there that we shall see the emergence of the field of the transference. I shall call it—introducing my second new term here—separation.
-P216-217 of 3rd June 1964, Alan Sheridan’s translation of Seminar XI
THE SUBJECT AND THE OTHER: APHANISIS
I spoke to you last time about the form of alienation, which I illustrated with several examples, and which I told you could be articulated in a vel of a very special nature. Today we might try to articulate it in some other ways. For example—not something.. . without something else. The dialectic of the slave is obviously no freedom without life, but there will be no life for him without freedom. From one to the other there is a necessary condition. This necessary condition becomes precisely the adequate reasons that, causes the loss of the original requirement.
Perhaps this is something like what also happens among some of my followers. There is no way of following me without passing through my signifiers, but to pass through my signifiers involves this feeling of alienation that incites them to seek, according to Freud’s formula the small difference. Unfortunately, this small difference makes them lose the full significance of the direction I pointed out to them. Heavens, I am not so touchy, I leave everyone to go his own way in the direction that I point out—but I could have done without …
-P218-219 of 3rd June 1964, Alan Sheridan’s translation of Seminar XI
That by which the subject finds the return way of the vel of alienation is the operation I called, the other day, separation. By separation, the subject finds, one might say, the weak point of the primal dyad of the signifying articulation, in so far as it is alienating in essence. It is in the interval between these two signifiers that resides the desire offered to the mapping of the subject in the experience of the discourse of the Other, of the first Other he has to deal with, let us say, by way of illustration, the mother. It is in so far as his desire is beyond or falls short of what she says, of what she hints at, of what she brings out as meaning, it is in so far as his desire is unknown, it is in this point of lack, that the desire of the subject is constituted. The subject—by a process that is not without deception, which is not without presenting that fundamental twist by which what the subject rediscovers is not that which animates his movement of rediscovery—comes back, then, to the initial point, which is that of his lack as such, of the lack of his aphanisis.
-P219 of 3rd June 1964, Alan Sheridan’s translation of Seminar XI
What the subject has to free himself of is the aphanisic effect of the binary signifier and, if we look at it more closely, we shall see that in fact it is a question of nothing else in the function of freedom.
It is not for nothing that having had to justify the term vel of alienation at the level of our experience, the two most obvious supports to occur to us were those two choices which, by their formula, structure, firstly, the position of the slave and, secondly, the position of the master. When the slave is confronted with the choice of his freedom or his life, he decides, no freedom without life-life remains forever deprived of freedom. And, when we stand back to look at things, we will see that the alienation of the master is structured in exactly the same way. For if Hegel shows us that the status of the master is established in the struggle to the death of pure prestige, it is because it is to bring his choice through death that the master also constitutes his fundamental alienation.
-P221 3rd June 1964, Alan Sheridan’s translation of Seminar XI
There is no subject without, somewhere, aphanisis of the subject, and it is in this alienation, in this fundamental division, that the dialectic of the subject is established.
In order to answer the question I was asked last time concerning my adhesion to the Hegelian dialectic, is it not enough that I should answer that, because of the vel, the sensitive point, point of balance, there is an emergence of the subject at the level of meaning only from its aphanisis in the Other locus, which is that of the unconscious? Furthermore, this involves no mediation, and I promise, if I am provoked into doing so, to show that the effective experience that has been established in the perspective of an absolute knowledge never leads us to anything that may, in any way, illustrate the Hegelian vision of successive syntheses, nothing that provides even so much as a hint of the moment that Hegel in some obscure way links to this stage, and which someone has been pleased to illustrate by the title of Dimanche de la vie—when no opening remains in the heart of the subject.
I should indicate here where the Hegelian lure proceeds from. It is included in the approach of the Cartesian I think, in which I designated the inaugural point that introduces, in history, in our experience, in our necessity, the vel of alienation, which prevents us for ever from misunderstanding it. It is in the Cartesian approach that the vel was taken for the first time as the constituent of the dialectic of the subject, which now cannot be eliminated in his radical foundation.
This reference will be useful to me in characterizing the experience of the transference, so I shall be returning to it later in order to articulate certain of its features.
-P223-225 of 3rd June 1964, Alan Sheridan’s translation of Seminar XI
P223
It is here that Descartes finds a new way. His aim is not to refute uncertain knowledge. He is happy to let such knowledge run around quite freely, and with it all the rules of social life. Indeed, like everyone at this historical moment at the beginning of the seventeenth century, in that inaugural moment of the emergence of the subject, he has present all around him a profusion of libertines who serve as the other term of the vel of alienation. They are in reality Pyrrhonians, sceptics, and Pascal calls them by their name, except that he does not stress in a sufficiently free way its meaning and implications.
Scepticism does not mean the successive doubting, item by item, of all opinions or of all the pathways that accede to knowledge. It is holding the subjective position that one can know nothing. There is something here that deserves to be illustrated by the range, the substance, of those who have been its historical embodiments. I would show you that Montaigne is truly the one who has centred not around scepticism but around the living moment of the aphanisis of the subject. And it is in this that he is fruitful, that he is an eternal guide, …
p224
Scepticism is something that we no longer know. Scepticism is an ethic. Scepticism is a mode of sustaining man in life, which implies a position so difficult, so heroic, that we can no longer even imagine it—precisely perhaps because of this passage found by Descartes, which led the search for the path of certainty to this very point of the vel of alienation, to which there is only one exit—the way of desire.
This desire for certainty led Descartes only to doubt—the choice of this way led him to operate a rather strange separation.
-P225-226
I think you will appreciate the elegance of such a solution, which leaves a whole portion of the truths, in particular the eternal truths, in God’s charge. Let us be quite clear about this, what Descartes means, and says, is that if two and two make four it is, quite simply, because God wishes it so. It is his business.
Now, it is true that it is his business and that two and two make four is not something that can be taken for granted without his presence.
I’m going to try to illustrate what I mean here. When Descartes speaks to us of his process, of his method, of clear ideas and confused ideas, simple ideas and complex ideas, he places the order to be followed between these two terms of his method. It is very possible after all that one plus one plus one plus one do not make four and I must tell you that what I am articulating the vel of alienation on is a good example of it. For, in the cardinal order, this would give more or less something like the following:
1 + (1 + (1 + (1 + (… )))).
Whenever a new term is introduced, one always runs the risk of letting one or several of the others slip between one’s fingers. In order to reach four, what matters is not the cardinal but the ordinal. There is a first mental operation to be carried out and then a second, then a third, then a fourth. If you do not do them in the right order, you fail. To know whether, in the last resort, it makes three, or four, or two, is of secondary importance. That’s God’s business.
What Descartes now introduces …
-P227 of 3rd June 1964, Alan Sheridan’s translation of Seminar XI
DR ANDRÉ GREEN**: Is there not a way of articulating the question of the Vorstellungsreprasentanz in what you said later—in particular, on the basis of the relation between the subject and the mirror, insofar as this relation refers the subject to the subject who is supposed to know, who is in the mirror?
(**From Wikipedia, André Green; 12 March 1927 – 22 January 2012) was a French psychoanalyst. In 1965, after having finished his training as a psychoanalyst, he became a member of the Paris Psychoanalytic Society (SPP), of which he was the president from 1986 to 1989. In the early 1960s, Green attended Jacques Lacan’s seminars without abandoning his affiliation to the SPP – a bold decision which for some time enabled him to straddle the competing strands of French psychoanalysis from an independent position. As the decade progressed however, he moved further from Lacan, and finally broke with the latter in 1970 by criticising his concept of the signifier for its neglect of affect.)
LACAN: Mmm … Well … I cannot follow you in this direction—because I think it’s a short circuit.
The point at which the plug of the Vorstellungsreprasentanz is connected—and this is of great importance to what I have said today—is the point that I told you was the virtual point of the function of freedom, in as much as the choice, the vel, is manifested there between the signifier and the subject. I illustrated it with an opening on what might be called the avatars of this freedom, which, in the final resort, is never, of course, discovered by any serious individual. I then passed on to Descartes, who is scarcely concerned with it at all, except in act. His own particular freedom takes the form of action, of the way in which he finds his certainty. This does not mean that he leaves it to us like a bank account.
-P246 of 17th June 1964, Alan Sheridan’s translation of Seminar XI
But we are not simply that, and even if we were, we would also have to be the subject who thinks. And in so far as we are the subject who thinks, we are implicated in a quite different way, in as much as we depend on the field of the Other, which was there long before we came into the world, and whose circulating structures determine us as subjects.
It is a question, then, of knowing in what field the different things with which we deal in the field of analysis occur. Some occur at the level of the first field, of the Ich, and others—which should be distinguished from the first, because if one confuses them, one is lost—in the other field, the field of the Other. I have already shown you the essential articulations of this other field in the two functions that I have defined and articulated as alienation and separation.
The rest of my discourse today presupposes that you have thought about these two functions since I introduced them to you—in other words, that you have tried to make them function at different levels, to put them to the test.
I have already tried to embody certain consequences of the very particular vel that constitutes alienation—the placing in suspense of the subject, its vacillation, the collapse of meaning
—in such familiar forms as your money or your life or freedom or death, which are reproduced from a being or meaning—terms that I do not propose without some reluctance. I would ask you not to be too hasty in overloading them with meanings, for if you do you will only succeed in sinking them. So I feel that it is incumbent upon me to warn you of this at the outset.
Nevertheless, I am introducing here what my discourse will try to articulate, if possible, next year. It is a question of something that ought to be entitled the subjective positions. For all this preparation, concerning the fundamentals of analysis, should normally serve to show—since nothing can be properly centred except the position of the subject—what the articulation of analysis, on the basis of desire, makes it possible to illustrate about these fundamentals.
Subjective positions, then, of what? If I relied on what is available, I would say —the subjective positions of existence, with all the advantages that this term may possess from being already much in the air. Unfortunately, this term would allow us a rigorous application only at the level of the neurotic—which, indeed, would be no small matter. That is why I will say the subjective positions of being. I am not committing myself in advance to my title, I may find a better one, but, in any case, that’s what it’s about.
***
Commentary on Alienation and Separation in Seminar XI
Éric Laurent : Alienation and Separation in Seminar XI (Paris) : 1st July 1990. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Laurent) or https://web.archive.org/web/20221126132342/https://lacanianworks.net/1990/07/alienation-and-separation-in-seminar-xi-paris-1st-july-1990-eric-laurent/ for references or www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
***
Some other texts on Lacan’s use of Mathematics and Topology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT Lecture on Topology) : 2nd December 1975 : Jacques Lacan. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan
***
Category Mathematics/topology
This site / f) Mathematics/Topology ( 1 A Lacanian Clinic/ C Cartel or Group Work ),
&
***
Other Authors
Nathalie Charraud
– see this site /5 Authors A-Z (Charraud)
& available from www.LacanianWorksExchange.net:
Nathalie Charraud : A Calculus of Convergence : 1987
This article was first published as Charraud 1987, in the special issue of Ornicar? 40 p136-142, devoted to interpretation. It, and some two dozen other articles, appeared together under the general title: A Calculus of Interpretation. Published as ch 10 p218-226 of ‘Drawing the Soul: Schemas and Models in Psychoanalysis’ : Edited by Bernard Burgoyne: Rebus Press: 2000 Download, with footnotes & translated by Bernard Burgoyne, www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
Nathalie Charraud : Cantor with Lacan (1) : 1998
Published (1) La Cause Freudienne , No 39 , 1998 (2) p117-139 of Psychoanalytical Notebooks PN 3 – Love, Autumn 1999. Download, translated by Vincent Dachy & Philip Dravers, www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
Nathalie Charraud : Cantor with Lacan (2) : 1999
Published (1) La Cause Freudienne , No 40, 1999 (2) p170-181 of Psychoanalytical Notebooks PN 4 – Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis, Spring 2000. Download, translated by Vincent Dachy & Heather Menzies, www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
Nathalie Charraud : The passion for the dice: The other side of statistics. : 2004
Published 1) La passion du dé, envers de la statistique : Nathalie Charraud : Dans La Cause freudienne 2004/2 (N° 57), pages 107 à 109. https://www.cairn.info/revue-la-cause-freudienne-2004-2-page-107.htm 2) p97-101 Psychoanalystical Notebooks, PN 16, Regulation and Evaluation : Download, translated by Vincent Dachy,
Nathalie Charraud : X – the Unknown of the Equation and the Name-of-the-Father : 13th July 2006 (Rome)
From the Vth World Association of Psychoanalysis’ Conference: ‘Scilicet of the Name of the Father’: Rome: 13th – 16th July, 2006. Published by www.wapol.com . Download, translated by Thelma Sowley, www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
***
Pierre Skriabine
Available at this site /5 Authors A-Z (Skriabine) or
https://web.archive.org/web/20200528195204/http://www.lacanianworks.net/?cat=292
Available from www.LacanianWorksExchange.net:
Pierre Skriabine : The Ink and the Brush – remarks on the particular and the universal : Winter 1992
Publication details, references & notes at www.LacanianWorks.org /5 Other Authors A-Z (Skriabine) Download, translated by Philip Dravers, www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
Pierre Skriabine : Clinic and Topology – The Flaw in the Universe, The Clinic of the Borromean Knot : 1993
Publication details, references & notes https://web.archive.org/web/20210413160242/http:/www.lacanianworks.net/?p=6444 . Download, translated by Ellie Ragland & Véronique Voruz, Part I The Flaw in the Universe www.LacanianWorksExchange.net , Part II The Clinic of the Borromean Knot www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
Pierre Skriabine : Drive and Fantasy : June 1994
Publication details, references & notes https://web.archive.org/web/20210917045340/http:/www.lacanianworks.net/?p=298. Download, published by jcfar.org.uk, at www.LacanianWorksExchange.net.
Pierre Skriabine : Some Moral Failings Called Depressions : February 1997
Publication details, references & notes www.LacanianWorks.org /5 Other Authors A-Z (Skriabine) or By date (February 1997) Download, translated by Jack W. Stone www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
Pierre Skriabine : Aporias of a sacrifice accomplished : 1999
Originally published in La cause freudienne, Number 41, Paris, 1999. In English in Psychoanaytical Notebooks, Issue 5, 2001, p71-79. Download translated by Heather Menzies www.LacanianWorksExchange.net.
Pierre Skriabine : The Logic of the Scansion or Why a Session can be Short : 2000
Publication details, references & notes https://web.archive.org/web/20221208160729/https:/lacanianworks.net/?p=12203 Download www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
Pierre Skriabine : Does the Father Say Knot? : 3rd February 2001 (London)
This paper was presented in London at the Freudian Field Seminar 2000-2001, 3rd February 2001. Published in Psychoanalytical Notebooks, nr 13, 2005, p146-162. Download www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
Pierre Skriabine : Knot and Name-of-the-Father : 13th July 2006 (Rome)
Publication details, notes & references www.LacanianWorks.org /5 Authors A-Z (Skriabine) Download www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
Pierre Skriabine : Ordinary Psychosis with a Borromean Approach : 2009
Publication details, references & notes https://web.archive.org/web/20221208160729/https:/lacanianworks.net/?p=12226 Download, translated by the author, www.LacanianWorksExchange.net
***
Jean-Michel Vappereau
Availability given at
This site /5 Authors A-Z (Vappereau) &
https://web.archive.org/web/20200528235003/http://www.lacanianworks.net/?cat=407
Available from www.LacanianWorksExchange.net :
Jean-Michel Vappereau : Fabric (Stuff) – Intrinsic Topological Surfaces : 1988
Publication details, references & notes https://web.archive.org/web/20210918232348/http:/www.lacanianworks.net/?p=12580 Download, in French, www.LacanianWorksExchange.net. Translated by Marc Etlin, see www.Freud2Lacan.com /Lacan (/Lacan (142. English translation of Jean-Michel Valppereau’s Étoffe (Fabric) – pt.1, pt. 2, pt. 3, pt. 4, pt. 5, pt. 6) Thus,
Table of Contents = pt. 1
Presentation of the series of the fascicles of results pI-XVIII = pt. 2
p8-9 Appears to be an overview – pt. 3
p13-49 The Mirage of Topology – pt. 4
p51-76 Psychoanalysis with Lacan – Chapter 1 – enjoyment and the interdiction of desire. Surfaces covering a knot – pt. 5
p77-97 Chapter II Classicist fabric and surface for Lacan. Theory of intrinsic topological surfaces – pt. 6
Jean-Michel Vappereau : KNOT, The Theory of the Knot Outlined by Jacques Lacan : July 1996
Publication details, references & notes here Download, translated by Jane C. Lamb-Ruiz, www.Freud2Lacan.com /Lacan (141. English translation of the Introduction to Noeud, by Jean-Michel Vappereau)
Jean-Michel Vappereau : A Method of Reading a Knot : 1997
Publication details, references & notes here Download, translated by Kristina Valendinova, www.Freud2Lacan.com /Lacan (143. English translation of Jean-Michel Vappereau’s A Method of Reading a Knot) In French, Ch II of http://jeanmichel.vappereau.free.fr/textes/noeud/index.html
***