Follow US:

Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Lacan,Nous et le Réel.-32: Deux ou trois choses sur le Réel

Difficulty: 0

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 ?

Freud's contribution

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

or tendencies

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

representing it

(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

The Description of Lacan,Nous et le Réel.-32: Deux ou trois choses sur le Réel