Lacan Us and the Real; 32
you are listening but can you catch a little bit of something that looks like the real ?
in this difficult task to make you hear something this evening
Do we hear ?
we do not ?
and now do we hear ?
will have been to put in place the desire
in relation to the subject
the last sentence of the "traumdeutung" is:
that desire is indestructible
so this should put us on the way
not to confuse
"Desire" with désires
even less with envy
people say: " I wanted to do this, it's my desire "
No, that's a lax definition
that doesn't take into account what Freud says.
and Lacan,in relation to Freud, will inter define desire with jouissance.
"jouissance" coming at the end of Lacan's teaching
the end by which Lacan takes the thing
the "little bit of real" it's that
he thinks it is necessary to start from the contingency of jouissance, something that is in excess
so it is from jouissance
that he will consider desire as being Freudian's desire
as a limitation taken on jouissance
in Miller's transcription of seminar 3 "the real is when we bump" is absolutely not what Lacan says
he says: "when we bump it is the impossibility to penetrate "
I already wrote a long development on this, because
it misleads everyone.
this false transcription, this falsification of the transcription
is what prevent the access to the Lacanian text
It's plugging up something.
and this explain the drift of Miller's school (ECF)
today totally inscribed in the dominant discourse
of course since there is no Real in the lacanian sense
so it is turning in a pure delirium
and loose all connection with psychoanalysis
so when they say "Lacan insisted...." (not to compromise his desire)
Lacan says exactly the opposite !
he says " if I feel like it, well I dont do it "
just to show that desire is not that
Desire can only come after the fact
When I say that Lacan defines desire from jouissance
it means that word come afterwards to tell
how it turned out
and from there
desire comes as a limitation of jouissance
that goes through the speech parades
the word being that by which the enjoyment will have been civilized
so desire is nothing but the possibility to pass through the parade of speech
from a conception of jouissance
as the Lacanian Real
it's even a fault to call it Lacanian Real
it is the Real such as Lacan defined it
in his trinitarian system: Real, Symbolic, Imaginary
it is absolutely impossible to get what this real is
without the construction of the Borromean knot
since imaginary apart, real and symbolic work together
symbolic and imaginary also work together as we saw in specific forms of jouissance
while imaginary and Real is the feminine jouissance (with no symbolic)
But the real cannot be defined independently to the symbolic
because out of the symbolic there is no Real
There is no access to the real
the Real is the impossible... for the symbolic
the symbolic gives access to the real that can't grasp it.
since it's a hole that can only be circumscribed, turning around it
but there are no other possibilities out of the symbolic
so only a speaking being can access the real
provided he pass, as a speaking being, by the symbolic
and this is where the notions of truth and Real takes place
the Real is inconceivable without the truth
because truth is the structure of every discourse
and truth is oriented by the real itself
so if we lie so much (since speaking is essentially lying)
it is that
we are governed by the truth
and we try to escape the real
what really interest me is this relation of truth to the real
I had a little experience here recently
and realized how much fantasy...
fantasy as a scenario, a story, it's symbolic
but paradoxically fantasy is governed by truth
even if it means denying it or trying to escape it
but it is ruled by the truth since truth is the structure of every discourse
so fantasy is symbolic
fantasy is what protects us from the real
what does it mean ? well in any kind of situation you are
you don't access directly to the real
there is always this frame of words...
or rather than words, of signifiers
signifiers is what makes your subject be
(signifier represent the subject for another signifier)
it is like a a protection matelas from this real
that real in itself inaccessible
and what is interesting is this relation between truth and Real
since truth belongs to the symbolic
not really "belongs" ,it is the structure of every discourse
so truth as what is forgotten
it is the Greek word αλήθεια alítheia
"a" without; "ithé " forget"
so : what comes out of oblivion to point to the real.
and the real is what is inaccessible
so truth allows us to put ourseves in relation with the inaccessible
on a notion of cap, orientation, direction
this is what rules our desire, since what our desire aims is inaccessible
so we are obliged to go through the truth even to deny it
because "truth" is not the" true"
one should not confuse"truth" and "true"
"truth", as said the painter G.Braques, has no contrary
truth will determine categories of formal logic : true and false
and from there is built all a system as the non contradiction
from this Aristotelian system of non-contradiction, science will be born.
and we have here a relation between the Real of science and the Real I am commenting here
is it really the same real ? well no.
it's not the same
science is an ideology of eradication of the subject
science aims to a real, independently of the observing subject
while the Real I am speaking about
the real that rules the speaking being
through the needle of truth
since we have to pass by the truth to access it
but it is not an easy access, one must not get to close to the real
the idea is not to go inside the real. it would be unbearable, we would die
but to find the way to our desire
to reconcile with the possibility of our desire
so truth is like a needle pointing to the pole of the real
the needle shows the way to be in the axe of our desire
something that has to do with our fate, our trajectory,
from which we need to get closer
to find ourselves in the possibilities of being on the way to language
which constitutes our own capacity to be, of our subject...
and the being of the subject is not "ontos", it is the being in itself
since we are nothing more than a speech manifesto
we must move towards the word
this is why psychoanalysis is not soluble in philosophy.
because it takes it a step further that requires going through the analytical experience
if not, it is inaccessible
it's just blabla, rationality
you rationalize things, but if it doesn't affect you.
a modification of our subject's position
it is useless
it's like new year resolutions
I'll do this, I'll do that....
and we find ourselves with words(blabla) that serves the purpose of doing nothing
so there is always a contradiction between the blabla and what we really do
and very often to take resolutions is to make sure they wont be followed
while to put in conformity the truth and the real on the mode of.....
(the metaphor is poor, I'm not proud of it)
but truth as a needle towards the real of desire
without falling into it
since it's all about getting in alignment
but not to burn oneself in the unbearable Real
that's the reason why we are caught in the symbolic which is the language
and language has two faces.
one face: symbolique, the other face: Real
the hidden face, as in the moon,
and that precisely directs us in our desire
so these "psychoanalysts" absolutely out of the Freudian-Lacanian teaching
but who themselves take pride in teaching
"are meddling in teaching" says Lacan.
when they that Creon doesn't compromise his desire
they have no idea of what desire is
because Creon has no desire
Desire is what is subversive
If Creon had a desire
he would use his time trying to enforce the law
He is just in a disposition to be subject to the law
which is precisely not the law of desire
-So many publications use psychoanalysis to comment on current events in a biased way
this is the majority of pseudo-analysts
they write about everything
and they think psychoanalysis is a toolbox to give sense to everything
this is an old trap already denounced by Freud as by Lacan
first, psychoanalysis is not an hermeneutic, its not here to give sense
its quite the opposite
i.e. to accept not only the non sense but also the out of sense
since this characterize the Real
this was brought from the very beginning in 1895 by Freud (Entwurf einer Psychologie )
conceiving the notion of synapse
putting in relation neurones with other neurones, or other cells than neurones
he begins with a very rigorous, logical, scientific approach
to understand how the psychic apparatus works
and this apparatus is precisely what characterize the speaking beings we are
we are not totally governed by the laws of nature
as our needs,
we need to drink, eat, reproduct
but something takes hold of that
a law that surimpose itself and is inherent to the psychic apparatus
and this law is governed by the laws of language
we are no more in the couple cause --> effect
but in something else
that Freud will define with his system φ and system Ψ
principle of pleasure/ principle of reality
this first couple will be surpassed with the advent of the second topic meta-psychology.
Beyond the principle of pleasure (and so, beyond principle of reality)
integrating the notion of the Real
Of course he didn't put it like that
Lacan will call it like that
once he understood what's going beyond the principles of pleasure/realty
and determine the psychic apparatus
so if i say that Freud already demonstrated it
this system that overrides the couple pleasure/reality as natural laws
is the law of the signifier
the laws of language
laws related to the signifier
and it is crucial not to mistake the signifier with the sign
the run-down into the sign: all these people speaking about analysis
are just running down into the sign.
they analyse a situation as if it where objective
a true analyst cannot speak like that
since the only thing he can speak of
is to be "poet enough" as said Lacan
to propose an interpretation to a subject
in order to give him the opportunity to come out of alienation in a discourse. .
while all these people do the opposite and feed the dominant discours, the capitalist discourse
grounded on the academic discourse
which is a perversion of the discourse of the master
because in the academic discourse the signifier is always brought back to a sign
brought back and devalued
the signifier represent a subject for another signifier
the sign represent something for someone
so we are in a false communication, a false communion
so when a psychoanalyst is bragging about commenting foreign policy as an analyst
and that he claims to be able to explain these things
he only reveals that he never understood psychoanalysis
to put oneself in the dimension of psychoanalysis
is to be precisely at the service of the analyst discourse
this mean: to have understood the importance of the structure
the real of language that determines the places
and allows the subject of the analysand to emerge
to get out of the alienation of the discourse in which he is caught