Radiophonie : recorded on 9th April 1970, transmitted 5th, 10th, 19th, and 26th June 1970 : Jacques Lacan

There are 4 versions of this:

a) Radiophonie recorded : 8^thApril 1970
b) Radiophonie: Seminar XVII: Session of 9^thApril 1970
c) Radiophonie: June 1970: the broadcast
d) Radiophonie: December 1970: written version published

TWO DISCOVERIES (July 2024)

– In Radiophonie (1970) Jacques Lacan is referring to Conference at Baltimore, October 1966. See The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man – the Structuralist Controversy : 1970 : edited by Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato, at this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Macksey, Donato or Index of texts). It is the reference to the Ford Foundation, just before Question II of Radiophonie, which gives it away.

– In the published version of Radiophonie (1970), ‘The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire 19-23 September 1960’ is referenced by Jacques Lacan . ‘Radiophonie’ was published in Scilicet: 1970 2/3: p55-58, close to and most probably after, the publication by Macksey & Donato (1970) of the conference proceedings. The reference to The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire : 19-23 September 1960 : Jacques Lacan, is not correct. This needs checking with the audio recording to see if this is Jacques Lacan’s cover-up or the editor of the text. The reference should, I strongly suspect, be to Anthony Wilden’s publication of his translation of The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis (Rome) : 26th September 1953 : Jacques Lacan, published with the Écrits : October 1966. Wilden translates this September 1960 text as ‘The Language of the Self, The function of language in psychoanalysis’ and publishes in 1968 [see this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Wilden 1968 or Index of Other Authors‘ texts)].

This makes the three commentaries on the Baltimore conference more apt. See

– ‘The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man : the Structuralist Controversy’ edited by Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato : The Johns Hopkins Press Baltimore and London: 1970. & in particular Of Structure as an inmixing of an Otherness prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever : 20th October 1966 : Jacques Lacan. See this site/ 4 Jacques Lacan (19661018) Book available at www.LacanianWorksExchange.net /Texts by request

– The French Invasion, Essay by Cynthia L. Haven — Published on 11th December 2017 – http://quarterlyconversation.com/the-french-invasion

Also Evolution of Desire, the Life of Rene Girard by Cynthia L. Haven, Michigan State University Press (2018)-contains many very funny and interesting stories about who organised this conference and how Lacan and Derrida stole the show and the ruckus that occurred right after Lacan’s presentation. The book can be downloaded from www.LacanianWorksExchange.net /texts by request (Jacques Lacan – October 1966)

– Jacques Lacan cuts between the real(ly)-symbolic (RS) & symbolic(ally)-real (SR) (a cartel ending/work-in-progress presentation) : 17th July 2019 (London) : Julia Evans. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Evans or Index of Other Authors Texts)

– A few notes on the 1966 Baltimore conference (inside and outside the conference, or better yet, the conference on a Moebius strip) by Richard Klein : April 2022 p1-3 of www.Freud2Lacan.com /Lacan (92. Lacan’s 2 interventions and presentation (Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever) at the October 1966, The Language of Criticism and the Sciences of Man Conference in Baltimore)

– Meeting the Subjectivity of our Time : 6th June 2022 : Thomas Svolos. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Svolos or Index of Authors’ texts)

Published in French:

-Scilicet 2/3, Paris, Seuil, 1970, pp. 55-99.

-Abbreviated in Le Séminaire de Jacques Lacan, Livre XVII, L’Envers de la Psychanalyse, 1969-1970, by Éditions du Seuil, Paris, 1991 See Seminar XVII Psychoanalysis upside down/The reverse side of psychoanalysis (1969-1970) : from 26th November 1969 : Jacques Lacan at this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19691126 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts)

-Autres Écrits, Paris: Seuil, 2001. See Autres Écrits : 2001 : Jacques Lacan at this site /4 Jacques Lacan (20010101 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts)

–c) Both written & spoken (MP3) versions are published by www.valas.fr. Listen http://www.radiolacan.com/en/topic/29/2

Published in English:

PS It is worth comparing all four translations, as there are discrepancies.

a) Sign

(First three pages of Lacan’s 1970 text ‘Radiophonie’: Scilicet: 1970 2/3: p55-58), Translated by Stuart Schneiderman, P203-206 of M. Blonsky (ed.), On Signs, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1985. Available at www.LacanianWorksExchange.net /Lacan

b) Radiophonie

Translated by Jack W. Stone. Published by M.I.T.: University of Missouri: http://web.missouri.edu/~stonej/t67894312xxxv.html. Available at www.LacanianWorksExchange.net /Lacan

Footnote 1 from Jack Stone’s translation: The first four of these answers were broadcasted by the R.T.B. (3^rd program) on the 5^th, 10^th, 19^th, and 26^th June 1970. They were re-broadcasted by O.R.T.F. (France-Culture) on June 7, 1970.

c) Seminar XVII: 9^th April 1970: Radiophonie – the oral version

The 1st (an oral version) as presented during the 9 April 1970 session of Seminar XVII. In fact, it comes second with respect to the version recorded the day before by Belgium radio. Translated by Cormac Gallagher from tape-recordings as part of Seminar XVII, Chapter X of ‘The seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book XVII: Psychoanalysis upside down/The reverse side of psychoanalysis’, published at www.lacaninireland.com, Available http://www.lacaninireland.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Book-17-Psychoanalysis-upside-down-the-reverse-side-of-psychoanalysis.pdf

Comments from Cormac Gallagher

From Cormac Gallagher’s Translator’s Note (2001) to LacaninIreland’s publication of Seminar XVII translated from unedited tapes :

I have been asked why I undertook the translation of this seminar when an official translation had been signalled. There are a number of reasons:

…

Thirdly: There is no critical French version of this seminar to compare with the acclaimed Stécriture version of Transference – cannibalised but not acknowledged in the corrected version. But when the official French text is compared to the ‘pirate editions’ that have been widely used by students over the years, a number of rather curious editorial decisions come to light. Here are the most obvious:

-The four replies to the Questions of Radiophonie read by Lacan to his seminar are omitted.

– Only one of Lacan’s two memorable visits to the University of Vincennes is reported. [See Analyticon – Impromptu No 1 : 3rd December 1969 (Vincennes) : Jacques Lacan. See this site /Lacan (19691203) & Analyticon 2 – Impromptu Number 2 : Wednesday 4th June 1970 (Vincennes) : Jacques Lacan. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19700604 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts)]

– The discussion on Hosea with Professor André Caquot has been truncated and omits many of the lively exchanges with Lacan.

– A number of passages in the ‘pirate’ editions ring truer and are certainly more vivid than the corresponding ones in the official version.

…

Dublin, October 2001

—

d) Radiophonie is p130-132 a supplement to Chapter VIII: From myth to structure: The Other side of Psychoanalysis, The seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII: translated by Russell Grigg. Publication details this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19691126)

NOTE: This replaces 44 pages of text in the Scilicet version, which is referenced at the end, with under 1.5 pages of text. It has been heavily edited.

e) Translations by Jack W. Stone & Anthony Chadwick at Freud2Lacan.com Lacan/153 Autres Écrits (Radiophonie—2 translations: Q&A1, Q&A2, Q&A3, Q&A4, Q&A5, Q&A6, Q&A7).

Richard G. Klein notes : Lacan read the first four questions and his provisional or tentative answers to Robert Georgin, who will later interview him on Belgian radio, in his Seminar XVII on Thursday, April 9 1970, the date which the official version of his seminar has assigned it. Staferla, École lacannienne, Version Monique Chollet, Valas etc. give the date of this seminar meeting as Wednesday, April 8, 1970.

The interview with Robert Georgin was recorded on June 1, 1970 and broadcast in Belgium on R.T.B. on June 5, 10, 19 and 26, 1970 (the first 4 questions and responses). Later, presumably in the following weeks, the remaining 3 questions and responses were broadcast in France on O.R.T.F. The journal, Scilicet 2/3, published the entire Radiophonie interview in September 1970, pages 55-99. Autres écrits republished it in 2001, pages 403-447. There are differences in his responses to the first 4 questions which he read in his Seminar XVII and in the published version in Scilicet 2/3 and Autres écrits.

Comment from www.valas.fr translated to English :

NOTE: Richard G. Klein’s account disputes these dates.

“There are 3 versions of Radiophonie.

The 1st (an oral version) as presented during the 9 April 1970 session of Seminar XVII. In fact, it comes second with respect to the version recorded the day before by Belgium radio.

The 2nd version (recorded 8 April 1970) was first broadcast on Belgium radio on 5 June 1970.

The 3rd version is the written version by Lacan and first published in Silicet 2/3 in December 1970.

On the link called HELP, on the ‘Radiophonie’ page on this site, you will find a presentation of the variations between the 3 versions.”

Comment from the Radiophonie page of About No Subject – Encyclopedia of Lacanian Psychoanalysis

However, the aim of the interview was wider: it was to assess the Freudian and Lacanian contributions, the notion of structure, the place of psychoanalysis in the humanities, its consequences “on the level of science, philosophy and more particularly Marxism, indeed communism,” in order to conclude finally with the question, “To what extent are knowledge and truth incompatible?”

If “to govern, to educate, and to psychoanalyse are three wagers impossible to make,”*** how “do you resolve the contradiction” between “the perpetual contesting of all discourse,” even of “analytic knowledge,” and the necessity to “hang on to it”?**

Is it through the “status of the impossible,” because “the impossible is the real”?

This was a standard interview in the media-with a lot of general and abstract problems-and it was characteristic of the 60s and 70s. The point was to allow a broader audience to know what Lacan’s theses had been since 1953.

—

**P1-2 of Jack W. Stone’s translation at www.Freud2Lacan.com. Question VII, Radiophonie :

QUESTION VII : To govern, to educate, to psychoanalyse are three wagers impossible to make. …

p1 ANSWER : Pardon me if, for this question again, I only attain the answer in re-clothing it with my own hands.

P2 ANSWER : To govern, to educate, to psychoanalyse are in fact wagers, but in calling them impossible, one only holds to prematurely insuring them of being real.

P4 ANSWER : To Govern, to educate, to cure thus who knows? by analysis, the fourth folding back to make there a figure of Lisette : it is the discourse of the hysteric.

But, what! would the impossibility of the latter two propose itself in the mode of an alibi for the first two? Or rather resolve them in impotence? [96]

By analysis, there is no lysis there (là n’a lyse1), permit me again this play on words, except the impossibility of governing what one does not master, to translate it as impotence from the synchrony of our terms: commanding savoir. For the unconscious, this is tricky.

1.TN: A pun on l’analyse (analysis)

For the hysteric, it is the impotence of savoir that her discourse provokes, in animating itself from desire–which reveals how educating founders.

P6-7 ANSWER : Thus the discourse of the master finds its reason from the discourse of the hysteric in that it making himself the agent of the all powerful, the master (il) renounces responding as a man, since in soliciting him from being, the hysteric only obtains savoir. It is to the savoir of the slave that is henceforth remitted producing the plus-de-jouir from which, starting from his own (his own savoir), he did not obtain that the woman was cause of his desire (I am not saying: object).

Whence it is insured that the impossibility of governing will only be constricted (serré) in its real in regressively working the rigor of a development that necessitates the lack in enjoyment (manque á jouir) from its start, if it maintains it to its end.

—

*** Quotation from Analysis Terminable & Interminable : 1937c : Sigmund Freud, SE XXIII p209-54.

See The three impossible professions – Analysis, Education & Government, SE XXIII p248 : 1937 : Sigmund Freud at this site /4 Sigmund Freud (19370101). Published, bilingual, at www.Freud2Lacan.com /Homepage (Analysis Terminable and Interminable (Die endliche und die unendliche Analyse)),

And finally we must not forget that the analytic relationship is based on a love of truth – that is, on a recognition of reality – and that it precludes any kind of sham or deceit. Here let us pause for a moment to assure the analyst that he has our sincere sympathy in the very exacting demands he has to fulfil in carrying out his activities. It almost looks as if analysis were the third of those ‘impossible’ professions in which one can be sure beforehand of achieving unsatisfying results. The other two, which have been known much longer, are education and government. Obviously we cannot demand that the prospective analyst should be a perfect being before he takes up analysis, in other words that only persons of such high and rare perfection should enter the profession. But where and how is the poor wretch to acquire the ideal qualifications which he will need in his profession? The answer is, in an analysis of himself, with which his preparation for his future activity begins. SE XXIII p248

Related Text

-Extract from Ordinary Psychosis : 1999 : Éric Laurent & Radiophonie : 9th April & 5th June 1970 : Jacques Lacan, See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19700409 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts) or download at www.LacanianWorksExchange.net

Quotation in the notes to Laurent : Question I, p9 of Jack W Stone’s translation, Radiophonie :

Let this help us in putting the: no (pas de) smoke without fire, at the same step (au même pas) as the: no prayer without God, for one to hear what changes.

It is curious that forest fires do not show the someone to whom the imprudent sleep of the smoker is addressed.

And that there has to be the phallic joy, the primitive urination with which man, says psychoanalysis, responds to fire, to put us on the path of what there are, Horatio, in heaven and on earth, [See note below^^] of other materials to make a subject than the objects your knowledge (connaissance) imagines.

The products for example from the quality of which, in the Marxist perspective of surplus value (plus-value), rather than from the master, the producers could ask an explanation (demander compte) for the exploitation they undergo.

When one recognises the sort of surplus enjoyment (plus-de-jouir) that makes one say “this (ça) is someone,” one will be on the path of a dialectical material perhaps more active than the Party flesh, employed as history’s baby-sitter [in English]. This path, the psychoanalyst could light it with his pass.

^^Note on ‘responds to fire, to put us on the path of what there are, Horatio, in heaven and on earth’ by Julia Evans, August 2024

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Quote from Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio, From http://www.shakespeare-online.com/quickquotes/quickquotehamletdreamt.html : Shakespeare Quick Quotes

a) ‘your philosophy’ refers to philosophy (or learning) in general. b) The emphasis here should be on “dreamt of”, as Hamlet is pointing out how little even the most educated people can explain. c) One can imagine happier times when Hamlet and Horatio, studying together at Wittenberg, engaged in heated philosophical debates. d) Shakespeare does not expand on the specific nature of Horatio’s philosophy, and in the First Folio (1623), the text actually reads “our philosophy.” Some editors, such as Dyce, White and Rowe, choose to use “our” instead of “your” (as found in Q2), believing Hamlet is speaking in general terms about the limitations of human thought.

Citation

-Some Moral Failings Called Depressions : February 1997 : Pierre Skriabine. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Skriabine)

Skriabine states, p5 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : This plus-de-jouir animates the subject; it is necessary for the turning of the mechanism, Lacan notes in Radiophonie, [7] but there must not be too much of it: if there is, the subject finds himself delivered up to the gourmandise [8] Find textof a ferocious superego that requires him to renounce this pulsional satisfaction and thus give up on his desire. This is precisely the source of the discontent in civilisation analysed by Freud: a “giving up on desire” that does not go without depressive effects. [Civilization and its Discontents : 1929 : Sigmund Freud, SE XXI p58-145, See this site /3 Sigmund Freud (19290101 or Index of Sigmund Freud’s texts) Download bilingual at www.Freud2Lacan.com /Freud/Philosophy (31. CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS (Das Unbehagen in der Kultur)]

Footnote [7] Radiophonie, Probably Question VII p29 of Jack W. Stone’s translation, p5-6 of www.Freud2Lacan.com : It is on the contrary from being in progress over university discourse that the discourse of the analyst would permit it to specify (cerner) [97] the real of which its impossibility makes a function, in that it would indeed like to submit to the question of the plus-de-jouir that already has its truth in a savoir, the passage of the subject to the signifier of the Master.

This is to suppose the savoir of structure, which, in the discourse of the analyst, has the place of truth.

This is to say with what suspicion this discourse must sustain all that presents itself at this place.

For impotence is not the disguise of which the impossible would be the truth, but it is no more the contrary: impotence would render the service of fixing the gaze if truth were not seen there on the point of vanishing . . . into thin air.

We must cease these games of which truth makes the expense ridiculous.

It is only in pushing the impossible in its deductions (retranchements) that impotence takes on the power of turning the patient into the agent.

It is in this way that it comes into act in every revolution in which structure might have a step to make, so that impotence changes its mode, of course.

In this way language makes a renewal (novation) from what it reveals of jouissance and makes arise the fantasy that realises a time. [JE, translation modified]

***

-Thoughts about the current forms of the impossible to teach : 21st September 2000 : Éric Laurent. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Laurent)

Laurent states, ‘ What Nietzche said is written with the formulas of Lacan [4]:

S2 a

S1 $

What is at play in teaching consists in articulating S2 and a with the good arrow. ‘[4]

Reference [4] Radiophonie : 9th April 1970 : Jacques Lacan. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19700409 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts)

Possibly Question I, p3 of Jack W. Stone’s translation of Radiophonie :

If I succumbed now, the only work I would leave would be these scraps chosen from my teaching, of which I have made a buttress against the news (l’information), of which it is to say everything that it diffuses it.

What I have stated in a confidential discourse, has nonetheless displaced common audition, to the point of leading to me an audience that gives me evidence of being stable in its enormity.

I remember the annoyance with which a boy interrogated me, who was mixed in, in wishing himself a Marxist, with a public made up of people from the Party (the only one) who had rushed (God knows why) to the communication of my “dialectic of desire and subversion of the subject in psychoanalysis.” [**]

I gently (gentle as I always am) pointed out what followed in my Écrits [published in October 1966], the daze that answered me from this public.

As for him, “Do you believe then,” he said to me, “that it suffices that you have produced something, inscribed with letters on a blackboard, to expect an effect?”

Such an exercise has carried however, and I have had proof of it, were this only that from the scrap that made for it a right for my book–the funds of the Ford foundation [NOTE] that motivate such meetings from having to sponge them up, being then found unthinkably dried up for publishing me.

It is that the effect that is propagated is not of a communication of speech, but of a displacement of discourse.

[**] Who is the boy who interrogated me? Anthony Wilden was at the 1966 Baltimore Conference – see NOTE below.

However, Wilden’s translation of The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis (Rome) : 26th September 1953 : Jacques Lacan [Also known as the Rome Report. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (September 1953)] was published in 1968 [see this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Wilden 1968 or Other Authors‘ texts)] as ‘The Language of the Self, The function of language in psychoanalysis’.

The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire : 19-23 September 1960 : Jacques Lacan. [See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19600923 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts) or the Écrits : October 1966 : Jacques Lacan. See this site /Lacan (19661001 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts.)] is specifically mentioned by Jacques Lacan according to the text published in 1970 and this it seems to me is probably a mistake, either by Jacques Lacan or the transcribers of Radiophonie. If by the official transcribers of Radiophonie, then to obscure to whom Jacques Lacan is referring. This needs checking with one of the recordings of Radiophonie 1970 available on the internet.

[NOTE] : The reference to the Ford foundation in Radiophonie : 1970 is probably to the Conference at Baltimore, October 1966. See The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man – the Structuralist Controversy : 1970 : edited by Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato at this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19661018 or Index). Related text : Jacques Lacan cuts between the real(ly)-symbolic (RS) & symbolic(ally)-real (SR) (a cartel ending/work-in-progress presentation) : 17th July 2019 (London) : Julia Evans. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Evans Julia or Index of Julia Evans’ texts)

***

– Habeus Corpus : 28th April 2016 (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) : Jacques-Alain Miller. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z or Index of other Authors’ texts)

Quote from Jacques-Alain Miller’s text : the disparity is the same in Lacan between, first, ‘like a language’, and then, second, la langue. First, that the unconscious is structured like a language implies that the structure is the same for any language. ‘Like a language’ is actually a universal of structure. Second, on the contrary, la langue is always particular.16 It consists only in its particularities. Consequently, there is no universal of tongues, one cannot make an all of tongues. Footnote 16. Cf. Lacan, J., ‘Radiophonie’, in Autres écrits, Paris: Seuil, p. 412, among other occurences.

Question II, p6 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : To take a less anecdotal example, let us remark that (63) the particular of the tongue (langue) is that by which structure falls under the crystal effect, as I said above.

To qualify it, this particular, as arbitrary is a slip (lapsus) that Saussure committed, in that, reluctantly, certainly, but by that all the more offered to the stumbling, he “ramparted” himself (se « rempardait ») there (since one tells me that this is my word) from university discourse where I have shown that what is harbored is precisely this signifier that dominates the discourse of the master, that of the arbitrary.

***

– The Stepladder (Escabeau) and Freudian Sublimation – From forcing to manipulation (A reading of «Joyce the Symptom») : 3rd February 2015 (Paris) : Éric Laurent. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Laurent or Index of Other Authors’ texts)

Quote Laurent : Lacan sets off from a level where there is no I, he uses a partitive Case: « of LOM has a body » **. It is an attribution that precedes any having. Lacan wants to define this attribution as prior to the mirror stage, prior to the relationship with the gaze, prior to the relationship with the point of view, the point from which one is seen. Philippe Lacadée did quite a bit with the point of view from which, etc, but here, there is none left. So, it matters without specifying from where. It’s the same point Lacan aims at in « Radiophonie » with the object a as the incorporeal that founds the corporal, and in the following text which we have read, with « it can be felt » [ça s’y sent] ***. No matter from where. Before any coming into play of the gaze and of the « point of view », the body is the product of an operation of the impact of the utterance. Lacan’s choice is underscored by the equivocation in the word « point ». The French expression « point de vue », if it is split, exposes the equivocation of « point » between the point as a place « a little piece of » and the word point used in the second element of a negation [meaning none or not at all].

—

** Joyce the Symptôm (Sinthôme) I & II : 16th June 1975 : Jacques Lacan. The two versions of this are both given in this post. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19750616 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts)

From the version published in Autres Écrits, p2 of www.Freud2Lacan.com, in French, LOM [JE, synonym of l’homme – the man], LOM de base, LOM cahun corps et nan-na Kun. Faut le dire comme ça : il ahun… et non : il estun… (cor/niché). C’est l’avoir et pas l’être qui le caractérise. Il y a de l’avoiement dans le qu’as-tu ? dont il s’interroge fictivement d’avoir la réponse toujours. J’ai ça, c’est son seul être. Ce que fait le f…toir dit épistémique quand il se met à bousculer le monde, c’est de faire passer l’être avant l’avoir, alors que le vrai, c’est que LOM a, au principe. Pouquoi ? ça se sent, et une fois senti,ça se démontre.

Il a (même son corps) du fait qu’il appartient en même temps à trois… appelons ça,

ordres. En témoignant le fait qu’il jaspine pour s’affairer de la sphère dont se faire un escabeau.

Dominic Hecq’s translation, www.Freud2Lacan.com : MAN [JE, LOM = l’homme-the man]. Basic MAN, MAN whue haswanbody and hasbutwan. Say “he haswan. . .” rather than “he iswan”

(abiding/body). For it is the fact of having rather than being it that characterizes

him. There is a touch of makinithav in the “what have you got?” he keeps asking

himself fictitiously despite having the answer from the start. “I’ve got it:” here is his

sole being. The epistemic f. . . up that stirs up everything amounts to nothing more

than putting “being” is front of “having.” The truth, however, is that the principle

of MAN is to have. Why? It feels right, and it can therefore be demonstrated.

He has (even his own body) since he belongs simultaneously to three. . . let’s say registers. Witness the fact that he prattles when fretting over the sphere he’ll use to fabricate a ladder.

—

*** L’Étourdit : 14th July 1972 : Jacques Lacan. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19720714 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts)

P87 (Probably of Autres Écrits 2001) of Anthony Chadwick’s translation, www.Freud2Lacan.com , They have signification then from the moment that they had no sense, not even common sense. This lights up the shadows which reduced us to groping around. Sense is not lacking in the so-called pre-Socratic prophesies: it’s impossible to say which one, but youcansenseit83. And that Freud is smacking his lips over it, not the best moreover since it’s from Empedocles, is not important since he had the sense of orientation; it’s enough for us to see that interpretation is a matter of sense and goes against signification. Oracular, which is not surprising since we know how to link the oral to the voice, from sexual displacement.

TN83 Lacan’s çasysent runs together ça s’y sent, without indicating which of the various meanings for sent is intended: feel, smell, or sense; nor whether ça is a neutral subject project or has the sense of id.

It’s the pitiable state of historians: they read only sense there where their only principle is to rely on documents of signification. They also then end up in transcendence, that of materialism for example which as “historical” is alas just that to the point of becoming irremediably so.

—

– The Unconscious and the Speaking Body : 17th April 2014 (Paris) : Jacques-Alain Miller. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Miller or Index of Other Authors’ texts)

P4 of Miller : There [in Seminar XI] , Lacan doesn’t express any particular interest in this word [flesh], but he will nevertheless repeat the word “flesh” when he speaks about the flesh that bears the imprint of the sign: the sign slices up the flesh, devitalising and cadaverising it, and then the body becomes separate from it [16] in this distinction between body and flesh, the body shows itself to be something that is able to flesh out the locus of the Other of the signifier as a surface of inscription. [Footnote 16 Lacan, J., “Radiophonie”, in Autres écrits, Paris: Seuil, 2001, p. 409.]

From Question II, p4-5 of Jack W. Stone’s translation, Following structure is to assure oneself of the effect of language.

This is only done in putting aside the petition of principle that it reproduces from relations taken at the real. At the real to be understood from my category.

For these relations also make a part of reality inasmuch as they inhabit it in formulas that are also present there. Structure is captured from there.

From there, this is to say from the point where the symbolic takes body. I am going to return to this: body.

It would be astonishing that one not see that in making language a function of the collective, one returns always to supposing someone, thanks to whom reality is redoubled in that he represents it, so that we no longer have to do more than reproduce this lining: in brief, in the wasp nest of idealism.

I will come at the end to someone who is not of this vintage: someone to make a sign of it (quelqu’un à lui faire signe).

…

(61) No one has his chance for insurrection in establishing himself from structure, since by rights it constitutes the trace of the defect of a calculus to come.

Let this preface the greeting I am going to give to the pool [in English] you imagine.

I return first to the body of the symbolic that must be understood as not at all metaphorical. As is shown by the fact that nothing isolates the body to be taken in the naïve sense, that in which the being sustained by it does not know that language is what discerns it for him, to the point that it would not be there if it were not able to be spoken of.

The first body makes the second from incorporating itself there.

Whence the incorporeal that remains to mark the first, from the time after its

incorporation. Let us render justice to the stoics for having known with this term: the incorporeal, to sign how the symbolic holds to the body.

Incorporeal is the function, which makes a reality from mathematics, the application of a same effect for topology, or analysis in a broad sense for logic.

But it is incorporated that structure makes affect, neither more nor less, affect only to be taken from what is articulated of being, only having there a de facto being, that is, from being said from somewhere.

By which it is affirmed of the body that it is second whether it be dead or alive.

Who does not know the critical point from which we date in man the speaking being: the sepulchre is where, in a fashion, it is affirmed that contrary to any other, the dead body keeps what gave the living its character: body. A Corpse [in English] remains, does not become carrion, the body that speech inhabited, that language corpsified.

***

– Speaking through One’s Symptom, Speaking through One’s Body : 7th July 2012 (Lausanne) & 23rd November 2013 (Buenos Aires) : Éric Laurent. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (20120707 or Index of other Authors’ texts)

p138-139 Quote from Éric Laurent, 0n the other hand, agitation on the side of the reaI can be read as one of the consequences of the object a’s “rise to the zenith”[2]. Foregrounding the requirement for jouissance makes our bodies conform to an “iron law” whose consequences have to be strictly observed.

Footnote 2 : Lacan J, Radiophonie, Autres Écrits, Seuil, Paris,2001, p.414. : … one of the consequences of the object a’s “rise to the zenith”.

Question II, P8 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : It is the hic that is only made a nunc in being a psychoanalyst, but also a Lacanian one. Soon everyone will be one, my audience makes its prodrome, therefore psychoanalysts also. The rising to the social zenith of the object called by me my petit a would suffice there, by the effect of anxiety provoked by the hollowing out from which our discourse produces it, from failing at its production.

NOTE : It has not been possible to trace the reference to “iron law” in Radiophonie

***

-On Lacan’s remarks on Chinese Poetry in Seminar XXIV : November 2009 : Adrian Price. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Price or Index of other Authors’ texts)

P196 of Adrian Price’s text Quote, ‘It is not just Freud’s hand that Lacan has let go of, Lévi-Strauss[7] and Roman Jacobson[8], the two great pillars of structuralism, have also fallen by the wayside.’

Footnote [7] See for example the reply to Question II in Radiophonie, Autres Écrits, Paris, Seuil, 2001 p407-415 : p6-7 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : see quote d)

Footnote [8] See for example the reply to Question III in Radiophonie, Autres Écrits, Paris, Seuil, 2001 p415-420 : p12 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : see quote e)

d) Question II, p6-7 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : One seizes there the mirage of a common level with the universality of psychoanalytic discourse, but, and from the fact of who demonstrates it, without the illusion being produced. For it is not from the game of apologetical mythemes propagated by the Institutes that a psychoanalyst will ever make an interpretation.

That the cure can only happen in a particular language (which one calls: positive), even in playing at translating it, there constitutes a guarantee “that there is no metalanguage,” according to my formula. The effect of language is only produced there from crystal linguistics. Its universality is only rediscovered topology, inasmuch as a discourse displaces itself there. The topological access being there even pregnant enough for mythology to reduce itself to it at the extreme.

Shall I add that myth, in Lévi-Strauss’ articulation–that is: the only ethnological form to motivate our question–refuses all I promoted with the instance of the letter in the unconscious? It operates neither from metaphor, nor even from any metonymy. It does not condense, it explains. It does not displace, it lodges, even in changing the order of the tents.

It only comes into play in combining its heavy units, where the complement, from insuring the presence of the couple, only makes a background spring forth.

This background is precisely what pushes back its structure.

Thus in psychoanalysis (because also in the unconscious) the man knows nothing of the woman, nor the woman of the man. With the phallus is summed up the point of myth where the sexual is made passion of the signifier.

That this point seems moreover to multiply itself, this is what especially fascinates the academic who, from structure, has a horror of psychoanalysis. Whence proceeds the recruiting of the novices of ethnology.

Where an effect of humor is marked. Black, of course, in painting itself in sectarian favors.

Ah! for lack of a university that would be an ethnic group, let us go make from an ethnic group a university.

Whence the wager of this sin whose terrain is defined as the place to make a writing of a knowledge whose essence is to not be transmitted by a writing.

Despairing of ever seeing the last class, let us recreate the first, the echo of knowledge there is in classification. The professor only returns to the dawn . . . the one where the bats of Hegel already believe themselves.

e) Question III, p12 of Jack W. Stone’s translation :

They did not yet blather about the listening, those who wanted me to give Jakobson more honor, for the use he was to me.

These are the same who since objected to me that this usage was not conformed to him in metonymy.

Their slowness to grasp it shows what cerumen7 separates them from what that they hear before they make a parable of it.

They will not take literally (á la lettre) that metonymy is indeed what determines as an operation of credit (Vershiebung means: veering) the unconscious mechanism itself where, however, it is the cash-balance-jouissance on which one draws.

***

Clinic and Topology – The Flaw in the Universe, The Clinic of the Borromean Knot : 1st January 1993 : Pierre Skriabine. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Skriabine or Index of other Authors’ texts). P86-87 of Skriabine’s text, Conjoining inside and outside in each of their points, the Mobius strip accounts for the question of the Freudian double inscription, conscious-preconscious on the one hand, unconscious on the other. This is what Lacan writes in Radiophonie (p. 70) concerning the Mobius strip:

The Freudian double inscription […] would thus be of the order [. . .] of the very practice which calls it forth as question, namely the cut: for in withdrawing from it, the unconscious attests to the fact that it consists solely in it; or again, that the more discourse is interpreted, the more it is proved to be unconscious.

In this respect, the Möbius strip, as topological support, accounts just as well for interpretation and its effects-and thus for the analytic act insofar as it lays down the interpretative cut.

Question III, p11 of Jack W. Stone’s translation, No hope therefore that he approach the spring of metonymy when, in doing his catechism from an interrogation of Freud, he asks himself if the inscription of the signifier, yes or no, is doubled by what there is of the unconscious (a question to which no one outside my commentary on Freud, which is to say, my theory, would know how to give any sense).

Is it that this would not however be the interpretive cut itself, which, for the stammerer on the bench, is a problem to make a consciousness? It would reveal, then, the topology that commands it in a cross-cap, in a Moebius strip, that is. For it is only from this cut that this surface, where from every point one has access to its reverse side, without having to pass over an edge (thus it has a single surface), is seen afterwards provided with a recto and a verso. The Freudian double inscription thus would not spring from any Saussurian barrier, but from the practice itself that poses the (71) question of it, namely the cut from which the unconscious in desisting testifies to have only consisted of the cut, that is, the more discourse is interpreted, the more it confirms itself to be unconscious. To the point that only psychoanalysis would discover that there is a reverse side to the discourse–on the condition of interpreting it.

***

-Interpretation and Truth : 1st July 1994 : Éric Laurent. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Laurent or Index of other Authors’ texts). Quote p80 of Éric Laurent, Lacan presents here what he has observed in his practice: that the sense is always getting lost, that something gets lost. This is what appears, for example, in “Radiophonie”, a text in which sense is defined not as that which runs or slips away, which is a definition of metonymy, but as something which gets lost. This presentation is already an effect of the construction of his theory of the object : it is no longer on the side of metonymy, but on the side of separation.

The nearest is probably Question III, p10 of Jack W. Stone’s translation, Metaphor and metonymy, without requiring this promotion of a wrecked figurativity, gave the principle from which I engendered the dynamism of the unconscious.

The condition for it is what I have said of the Saussurien bar, which cannot represent any intuition of proportion, nor be translated into a bar of a fraction except from a delusional abuse, but, as what it is for Saussure, making a real edge, to leap that is, from the signifier that floats to the signified that flows.

This is what metaphor brings about, which obtains an effect of sense (not of signification) from a signifier that makes a cobble in the swamp of the signified.

No doubt this signifier only lacks henceforth in the chain (69) in a precisely metaphoric fashion, when it is a question of what one calls poetry in that it arises from a making. As it is made, it can be unmade. By means of which one grasps that the effect of sense produced was made in the direction (sens) of non-sense: “the sheaf was neither miserly nor spiteful” (cf. my “Instance of the Letter” [The Agency (Insistence or Instance) of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason since Freud (Sorbonne, Paris) : 9th May 1957 : Jacques Lacan. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19570509)] ), for the reason that it was a sheaf, stupid to be eaten as is hay.

Completely different is the effect of condensation inasmuch as it takes its departure from repression and constitutes the return of the impossible, to be conceived of as the limit by which the category of the real is installed by the symbolic. On that a professor obviously induced by my propositions (which he moreover believes himself to contradict, while he is supported by them against an abuse by which he is abused, no doubt taking pleasure in it), has written some things to be retained.

Beyond the illustration of the hat in the leaves of the tree, it is from the leafing of the page that he prettily materializes a condensation from which the imaginary is elided from being typographical: that which some folds in the curtain make read: golden dream, the words dismantled to write there, borne flat: Revolution of October.

Here the effect of non-sense is not retroactive in time, as is the order of the symbolic, but indeed current (actuel), the fact of the real.

Indicating for us that the signifier re-emerges as a false note in the signified of the chain above the bar, and that if it is fallen from there, it is from belonging to another signifying chain that must not in any case tally with (recouper) the first, in that in making a discourse with it, the first changes, in its structure.

There we have more than we need to justify the recourse to metaphor to make grasped how in operating in the service of repression, it produces the condensation noted by Freud in the dream.

But, instead of the poetic art, what operate here are reasons.

Reasons, which is to say, effects of language inasmuch as they are prior to the signifiance of the subject, but they make this signifiance present in not yet being it in coming into play from the representative (représentant).

This intransitive materialization, shall we say, from the signifier to the signified, is what one calls the unconscious, which is not an anchoring, but a deposit, an alluvion of language.

For the subject, the unconscious is what reunites in him the conditions: either he is not, or he does not think.

***

-Alienation and Separation in Seminar XI : 1st July 1990 (Paris) : Éric Laurent. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Laurent or Index of Other Authors’ texts).

P19 of Éric Laurent’s text :

I have chosen to speak on the concepts of alienation and separation in Seminar XI. The subtitle of chapter 16 is “Alienation,” but none of the other chapters is entitled or even subtitled “Separation.” I adopted this title because one of the cuts or breaks this seminar produced when it was delivered in 1964 was the introduction of alienation and separation as two operations constituting the subject. That represented a break, though it was probably not deciphered as such in those years, and a new alliance as well.

It represented a break because, at that time, what was well known to Lacan’s audience was that he was applying categories derived from structuralist linguistics to psychoanalysis. Prevalent in those years was Lacan’s stress on metaphor and metonymy as two operations constituting the unconscious or the work of the unconscious. We have a sign of that, for instance, in a text by François Lyotard which criticizes Lacan, by emphasizing that the unconscious, as elaborated by Freud in ‘The Interpretation of Dreams’, cannot be reduced to metaphor and metonymy. (Lacan replied to this criticism in Radiophonie, an interview aired by the Belgian Broadcasting System.)What Lacan was being crlticized for was his use of these categories, derived in part from Jakobson’s work. It was not fully understood in 1964 that Lacan’s introduction of the concepts of alienation and separation indicated a break with those of metaphor and metonymy and his previous mapping of the unconscious.

Possibly Question II, p2-3 of Jack W. Stone’s translation, One sees how precious formalism was in sustaining the first steps of linguistics.

But it was all the same from the stumblings in the steps of language, of speech in other words, that it had been “anticipated.”

That the subject is not the one who knows what he says, when well and good something is said by the word that fails him (qui lui manque), but also in the blunder (impair) of a conduct he believes his own, this does not render it (58) easy to lodge him in the brain by which he seems helped above all when it sleeps (a point that current neurophysiology does not deny), there obviously is the order of facts Freud calls the unconscious.

Someone who articulates it, by the name of Lacan, says it is that or nothing else.

No one, after him now, can fail to read it in Freud, and whoever, according to Freud, works to psychoanalyze, must behave himself there lest he pay for it with the choice of stupidity.

Henceforth in stating that Freud anticipates linguistics, I say less than what imposes itself, and which is the formula I now liberate: the unconscious is the condition of linguistics.

Without the eruption of the unconscious, there is no means for linguistics to emerge from the doubtful light by which the University, by the name of human sciences, still eclipses science. Crowned at Kazan by the cares of Baudouin de Courtenay, it has no doubt remained there.

But the University has not said its last word, it is going to make that the subject of a thesis: influence on the genius of Ferdinand de Saussure of the genius of Freud; demonstrating where the one got wind of the other before radio existed.

Let us make as if it was not always done without, deafening us all as much.

And why would Saussure have been aware, to borrow the terms of your citation, better than Freud himself of what Freud anticipated, notably Lacanian metaphor and metonymy, places where Saussure genuit Jakobson.

If Saussure does not bring out the anagrams he deciphers in Saturnian poetry, it is because they throw down university literature. Roguery does not render him stupid; this is because he is not an analyst.

For the analyst, on the contrary, dipping into the procedures in which university infatuation is clothed always finds its man (there is this as a hope) and throws him right into a blunder like saying that the unconscious is the condition of language: there it is a question of making oneself an author at the expense of what I have said, even drummed in, to those interested: to wit, that language is the condition of the unconscious.

***

– The Body in the Teaching of Jacques Lacan : May 1984 : Colette Soler. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Soler or Index of Other Authors’ texts).

P5 of Colette Soler, In any case, it is true that this is Lacan’s fundamental thesis: language is not a superstructure. Language is [a] body, and [a] body which gives body, what is more. In “Radiophonie” there is an entire page devoted to this question of the body, and the idea is very simple.[8] Footnote [8] J. Lacan, “Radiophonie”, Scilicet 2/3, pp. 60-62.

Question II, p4 -5of Jack W. Stone’s translation : Following structure is to assure oneself of the effect of language.

This is only done in putting aside the petition of principle that it reproduces from relations taken at the real. At the real to be understood from my category.

For these relations also make a part of reality inasmuch as they inhabit it in formulas that are also present there. Structure is captured from there.

From there, this is to say from the point where the symbolic takes body. I am going to

return to this: body.

I will come at the end to someone who is not of this vintage: someone to make a sign of it (quelqu’un à lui faire signe).

…

***

P5 of Colette Soler, At least, it has to be said in order for it to be found simple. The idea is that it is “the body of the symbolic”, an incorporeal body, he points out, which by embodying itself, gives you a body (“The first body makes the second by embodying itself”).[9] In other words, this body which you call your own, is bestowed upon you by language. Footnote [9] J. Lacan, “Radiophonie”, op cit, p. 613.

Question II, p5 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : The first body makes the second from incorporating itself there.

Whence the incorporeal that remains to mark the first, from the time after its

incorporation. Let us render justice to the stoics for having known with this term: the incorporeal, to sign how the symbolic holds to the body.

Incorporeal is the function, which makes a reality from mathematics, the application of a same effect for topology, or analysis in a broad sense for logic.

By which it is affirmed of the body that it is second whether it be dead or alive.

Who does not know the critical point from which we date in man the speaking being: the sepulcher is where, in a fashion, it is affirmed that contrary to any other, the dead body keeps what gave the living its character: body. A Corpse [in English] remains, does not become carrion, the body that speech inhabited, that language corpsified.

Zoology can take its departure from the pretension of the individual to make being from the living, but this is so that it might fold back on it, only if Zoology pursue it at the level of the polyper.

The body, to take it seriously, is to start with what can carry the mark proper to range it in a sequence of signifiers. Starting from this mark, it is a support, not potential (éventuel), but necessary, of a relation, for it is still to support it to subtract itself from it.

***

P7 of Colette Soler, Let us say that we are in a universe where, obviously, if we wanted to amuse ourselves by exploring these phenomena of the marking of the body, we would find ourselves faced with too much to choose from. I won’t dwell on this further. I mention it only because the body which the symbolic attributes to you, is also marked by it. That is what Lacan formulates in different ways when he says, “the body makes the bed of the other.”[10] p17 Footnote [10] : … See also : J. Lacan, “De l’Un-en-moins, le lit est fait l’intrusion qui avance de l’extrusion: c’est le significant même” : Radiophonie Scilicet 2/3 p61

Question II, p5 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : The body, to take it seriously, is to start with what can carry the mark proper to range it in a sequence of signifiers. Starting from this mark, it is a support, not potential (éventuel), but necessary, of a relation, for it is still to support it to subtract itself from it.

From before any date, Minus-One designates the place of the Other (Autre) (with the sigla big A) for Lacan. From the One-Short (Un-en-Moins), the bed is made for the intrusion that advances from the extrusion; this is the signifier itself.

Not all fleshes go this way. From those alone that imprint the sign to negativize themselves, mount, in that bodies are separated from them, the clouds, the (p62) upper waters, of their jouissance, heavy with thunders to redistribute body and flesh.

***

p18, p8 of Colette Soler, The essential point, the hub of the effect of the signifier on the body, is that the signifier – I mean the unconscious signifier – affects the body. The signifier affects the body, and more precisely, affects its jouissance. I would now like to propose to you, for a start, a few formulae which are paradoxical and which may, at the beginning, be rather difficult to understand.

First of all, affect – it is not to be taken for granted that affect can be put on the side of the body. We all live with the inverse conviction, that is to say that it is the subject who is affected. If necessary, we can say “in his/her body”, particularly if one is hysterical. One believes that one suffers from one’s body. Lacan completely displaces these formulae in the later years, especially in “On psychoanalysis and its relations to reality”, “Radiophonie”, “Télévision”, and “L’Etourdit”. So, here are the formulae. I will give them to you first and then I am going to try to explain them just a little.

See On Psychoanalysis in its Relationships to Reality (Milan) : 18th December 1967 : Jacques Lacan. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19671218 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts.

This text Radiophonie : recorded 9th April 1970 : Jacques Lacan

Television : Broadcast 31st January 1974, Edited & recorded October & November 1973 : Jacques Lacan interviewed by Jacques-Alain Miller. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19740131 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts)

L’Étourdit : 14th July 1972 : Jacques Lacan. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19720714 or Index of Jacques Lacan’s texts)

***

p19, p8 of Colette Soler, Let me read you a short passage where Lacan, basically, summarises his thesis, or as he said: “I go over it again…”. His starting point is structure, and he says that, in defining it, this structure which is thus signifying, “in defining it according to relations articulated by their order, and such that, in taking part in it, one can only do so at one’s own expense.”[16 ] Footnote [16] J. Lacan: “Radiophonie”, Scilicet 2/3, p. 86. :

Question V, p21-22 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : And if this is the case, we rediscover the structure that is the wall of which we speak.

In defining it from relations articulated from their order, and such that in taking part there, one only does it at one’s own expense.

Expense of life or else of death. Expense of jouissance, that’s the main thing (voilà le primaire)

Whence the necessity of the surplus enjoyment (plus-de-jouir) for the mechanism to turn, jouissance only indicating itself there so that one might have it from this effacing (effaçon), as a hole to fill.

***

p19, p8 of Colette Soler, Thus the first affirmation: the living being only enters into language at his own expense. “Expense of life or of death.” That is what I attempted to comment on in terms of a mortification. “Expense of life instead of death, is secondary; expense [expenditure] of jouissance, that is what is primary. Whence the necessity of the plus-de-jouir in order for the machine to turn.”[17] Footnote [17] J. Lacan: “Radiophonie”, Scilicet 2/3, p. 86.

Question V, p22 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : Expense of life or else of death. Expense of jouissance, that’s the main thing (voilà le primaire)

Do not be astonished that I pause (ressasse) here when ordinarily I hurry along my path.

(87) It is that in remaking here an inaugural cut, I am not repeating it, I am showing it doubling to gather what falls from it.

***

p29, p13 of Colette Soler’s text, Moreover, if you take the expression “representative of the representation” that Lacan took up again from Freud, you will find these two aspects, since, according to the case, it is either a signifier or the object small a. What I am saying is that it is this object that he ended up calling plus-du-jouir, on the model of Marx’s “surplus value”. But, as you can see, it corresponds to the logic of the proceedings: in that this “plus” corresponds to the “minus” which came before it. This is because there was, first of all, through the effect of the signifier, a loss, a subtraction; that there is something or other that is going to be restored, a sort of compensation. That is what he says in “Radiophonie”, the text I read just now, whence comes the necessity for the “surplus jouissance” in order for the machine to work.[31] Footnote [31] cf. J. Lacan, “Radiophonie”, Scilicet 2/3, pp. 61-62

Question V, p21 – 22 of Jack W. Stone’s translation : The efficacy of glottal stops at the siege of Jericho lets one think that here the wall makes an exception, to tell the truth sparing nothing on the number of turns necessary.

It is that the wall is not found, on this occasion, to be made of stone, but rather of the inflexible of an extra wailing.

And if this is the case, we rediscover the structure that is the wall of which we speak.

In defining it from relations articulated from their order, and such that in taking part there, one only does it at one’s own expense.

Expense of life or else of death. Expense of jouissance, that’s the main thing (voilà le primaire)

Whence the necessity of the surplus enjoyment (plus-de-jouir) for the mechanism to turn, jouissance only indicating itself there so that one might have it from this effacing (effaçon), as a hole to fill.

Do not be astonished that I pause (ressasse) here when ordinarily I hurry along my path.

(87) It is that in remaking here an inaugural cut, I am not repeating it, I am showing it doubling to gather what falls from it.

For, the surplus value that Marx’s scissors, in detaching it, restores to the discourse of capital, this is the price that must be paid to deny as do I that any discourse can be appeased by a metalanguage (from Hegelian formalism on this occasion), but this price, he paid it in straining to follow the naïve discourse of the capitalist to its ascendant, and with the hellish life he made for himself there.

Julia Evans2024-09-02T15:50:09+01:00