This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Seminar 17: Wednesday, April 19, 1967
I took care to have it confirmed to me by the author himself whom I am quoting, that he has no experience of psychoanalysis.
Such are the points that I want to mark here, with their date, because after all, with time, they may change, the points which take on an examplary value and deserved to be retained even if only to require of me that I take them fully into account, I mean in detail.
With this, it remains for me to enter into the articulation of this structure, whose very simple line, which is on the board, gives the basis and foundation and which you already are not without having had, from my mouth, some clarifications about the way it is going to be of use.
Nevertheless, I repeat, the small o, here, it what already, in connection with the object thus designated, I was able to make you sense as being in a way what one could call the "setting" (monture), the setting
of the subject. A metaphor which implies that the subject is the jewel and the setting - what supports it, what sustains it, what sustains it - the frame. Already, I recall, nevertheless, that we have defined and imaged the little o-object as what falls in the structure, at the level of the most fundamental act of the existence of the subject, since it is the act from which the subject, as such, is engendered, namely, repetition. The fact of the signifier, signifying what it repeats, is what engenders the subject and something falls from it.
可是，我重复一下，在这里的这个小客体，因此而被指定的客体，我能够让你们感觉到，它在某方面形成 我们所谓的 「背景」 ，生命主体的背景。 这是一个比喻暗示着，主体是珠宝，要有背景支持它，维持它，维 持它的架构。可是，我回想到，我们曾经将这个小客体定义及想像为结构掉落的东西，在主体的实存的最 根本的行动的层次。 从这个行动，主体才被产生，因此这个行动还会重复发生。 这个意符的事实，标示它所 重复的东西，产生主体及其掉落的某件东西。
(6) Remember how the cut of the double loop, in this tiny mental object that is called the projective plane, cts these two elements which are, respectively, the Moebius strip which, for us, figures as a support of the subject, and the ring which necessarily remains of it, which cannot be eliminated from the topology of the projective plane.
（第六）请记住这个双重圈套的切割，在这个被称为 「投射平面」 的小小的金属客体。 例如，这两个因素， 个别被称为 「莫比斯环带」 ，对於我们而言，它的形状就是支持主体。 它的其余部分的环，它无法从投射的 拓朴地形，被减除掉。
Here, this little o-object is supported by a numerical reference in order to image what is incommensurable about it - incommensurable to what is involved in its functioning as subject, when this functioning operates at the level of the unconscious, and which is nothing other than sex, quite simply.
Naturally, this golden number is only a support chosen here because it has the following privilege which makes us retain it, but simply as symbolic function - has this privilege, that I already indicated to you as I could, for want of being able to give you - this would certainly take us too far - the most modern and the strictest mathematical theory of it, of being, as I might say, the incommensurable which circumscribes least quickly the intervals in which it can be localised. In other words, the one which, in order to arrive at a certain limit of approximation, demands, of all the forms - they are multiple and I think almost infinite - of the incommensurable, to be the one which demands most operations.
符号的功用。它拥有的这个特权，我已经儘可能指示给你们，（这样做确实会离题太远），有关它，有关 这个无法测量的最现代，最严格的数学的理论，对於能够找到的位置，给予最少量的间隔。换句话说，为 了到达某一个所有形式的近似值的极限，它要求这些形式加倍演算，将这个无法测量的东西，演算到无限， 这样它才能成为要求大部分运作的演算。
I recall to you at this point what in involved. Namely, that if the small o is here referred back to the 1, allowing its difference from the 1, (1-o), to be marked by o-squared - this depending on its own property as small o, which is that it should be such that 1+o = 1/o, from which it is easy to deduce that 1-o=osquared. Do a little multiplication and you will see it immediately. The o-squared subsequently will be referred back to this o which is here in the -1 (here for example) and will generate an o-cubed, the which o-cubed, will be referred back to o-squared, in order for there to emerge, at the level of difference, an o-to the fourth power which will be referred back thus , so that there can appear here an o-to the fifth power.
在这一点，我提醒你们一下，会牵涉到什麽。换句话说，假如这个小客体回归到这个一，让它的差異从这 个一，用零的平方标示，这就要依靠它自己作为小客体的属性，它的结果才会是：一加零相等於零分之一。 从这里，我们就很容易推論出：一减零相等於是零的平方。 你们跟它稍微乘上倍数，你们将立刻看得出来。 这个零的平方，随后会回归到这个 「负一」 里面的零，（我只是举个例子），然后产生一个零的三次方。 这 个零的三次方，会回归到零的平方，为了在差異的层次上，出现一个零的第四次方，因此会回归到这里， 这样就会出现一个零的第五次方，
You see that, on either side, there are displayed, one after the other, all the even powers of o on the one side and the odd powers on the other. Beings being such that by continuing them to infinity, since there will never be a stop or a term for these operations, their limit will nevertheless be o, for the sum of the even powers, o-squared - namely, the first difference - for the sum of the odd powers.
你们看出，不管在哪一边，陆续地会展示，在一边是零的偶数方，在另一边是零的奇数方。人的生命实存 也是如此，将他们延续到无限，这些运算会永远没完没了，可是，他们的极限将是零，因为零的偶数平方 的总数，换句话说，最初的差異，就是奇数次方的总数。
It is here then that there will come to be inscribed, at the end of the operation, what in the first operation, was here marked as the difference. Here, at the o, the o-squared. is going to come at the end to be added, realising in its sum, here, the 1, constituted by the complementing of o by this o-squared.
Which here is constituted by the addition of all the remainders, being equal to the first O, from which we
started. I think that the suggestive character of this operation does not escape you, all the more so because for a good while - for a least a month or a month and a half - I have been pointing out to you how it could support, give an image, for the operation of what is (7) realised on the path of the sexual drive, under the name of sublimation.
由所有的馀数的添加组成的结果，相等於这个最初的零，那是我们生命开始的地方。我认为，这个演算具 有暗示的特性，你们看得出来。因为好一阵子来，至少一个半月，我一直跟你们指出来，它如何能够支持， 具体显现，在性的欲望驱力的途径，以「昇華」的名义，所体现出来的远作。
I will not come back to it today, because I must advance. Simply, by indicating it in this way, to give you the aim of what we are going to have to do in making use of this support. As you will see and already have suspected, it will not be enough for us. Everything indicates to us - even in the very "sublime" success, it has to be said, of what it presents to us - makes us sense that if things were thus, if sublimation were able to make us reach this perfect One, itself placed at the horizon of sex, it seems to me that given the time that people have been talking about this One, it should be known. There must remain, between these two series - those of the even powers and the odd powers of the magical small o - something like a gap, an interval. In any case, everything in experience indicates it.
这一点，我今天先讲到这里，因为我必须赶进度。我只是简单地以这种方式指出它，让你们明白，我使用 这个支持是为了什麽目的。 你们将会看出，可能也已经怀疑到，我们处理得还不够充分。 我们所得到的每一 样指示，即使是我们必须说是 「昇華」 的成功，都使我们感觉到，假如事情是这样，假如昇華能够使我们到 达这个完美的 「太一」 ，它本身被置放在性的视野那里，我觉得，人们既然花费那麽多的时间一直谈论它， 那它应该被公诸於世。在这个魔术般的小客体，偶数次方跟奇数次方的，这两个系列之间，一定存在着某 件像是鸿沟的东西，作为间隔。无论如何，精神分析经验里，处处都指明这个间隔。
Nevertheless, it is not a bad thing to see that with the most favourable support for such traditional articulations, we already see, still, the necessity for a complexity from which, in any case, we ought to start.
Let us not forget that if the first 1, the 1 on which I have projected the succession of operations, is there, it is only there to image the problem with which, precisely, as such, the subject has to be confronted, if this subject is the subject that is articulated in the unconscious. It is, namely, sex. The 1 in the middle of the three elements of my little pocket ruler - this 1 in the middle, is the locus of sexuality.
让我们不要忘记，假如这个第一个 「一」 ，我投射在连续的运作的这个 「一」 存在这里，它只是要把这个问题
Let us stay there! We are at the door!
雄伯译 email@example.com (886) 038334621
Sexuality, huh, is a type, a moire, a puddle, a "black tide" as has been said for some time. If you put your finger in it and you put it to the tip of your nose, you will smell what is involved. When people say "sexuality", that refers to sex. For it to be part of sex, it would be necessary to articulate things a little bit more firmly. I do not know, here, what point of a bifurcation I ought to engage myself on, because it is an extremely litigious point. Must I give you here, immediately, the idea of what the subjectification of sex might be - if it worked!
Obviously you can dream about it! Indeed that is all you do, because this is what constitutes the text of your dreams! But this is not what is at stake. What could that be, if it were so? If it were so and if you give a sense to what I am in the process of developing before you: a signifier. On this occasion what is called - and you are going to see immediately how embarrassed you are going to be! - for if I say "male" or "fomale", all the same, huh, that is very animal, so it is! So then, I do not mind, "masculine" or "feminine". There, it proves right away that Freud, the first one who advanced along this path of the unconscious, speaks quite clearly about this. There is not the slightest way, I am saying ... (not that I am saying to you who are here before me "what proportion of you is masculine and (8) what proportion feminine?" This is not what is at stake. It is not a matter either of biology, nor of the organ of Wolf and Muller) ... it is impossible to give a sense, I mean an analytic sense, to the terms masculine and feminine.
If a signifier, nevertheless, is what represents a subject for another signifier, this ought to be here the
elective terrain. For you see how good things would be, how pure, if we could puot some subjectification - I mean a pure and valid one - under the term male..We would have what we need. Namely, that a subject manifesting itself as male, would be represented as such, I mean as subject, with respect to what? To a signifier designating the term female, and there would be no need for the latter to determine the slightest subject! The reciprocal being also true! I underline that if we question sex as regards its possible subjectification, we are nod giving proof here of any manifestly exorbitant requirement for intersubjectivity. It may be that this would hold up like that. It would not only be suitable, but what, quite clearly - if you question what I called earlier class consciousness, the class off all those who believe that man and woman exist - could not be anything other than that and as that,n it would be very nice if it were so. I mean that the source of what is comically called - I must say, that here, the comic is irresistible - "sexual relation", if I could make ... (in a gathering like this, which is becoming familiar to me, a gathering in which I can make understood, in just the right way, that there is no sexual act, which means, there is no act at a certain level and this indeed is the reason why we have to search out how it is constituted) ... if I could bring it about that the term "sexual relation" should sake on in each one of your heads exactly the farcical connotation that this locution deserves, I would have gained something! If the sexual relation existed, this is what it would mean: that the subject of each sex could touch something in the other, at the level of the signifier. I mean that thing would involve in the other, neither the conscious nor even the unconscious! Simply agreement. This relation of signifier to signifier, when it is fuend, is undoubtedly what makes us marvel in a certain number of striking little points ... tropisms in the animal. We are far from what is involved in man, and perhaps, moreover, in the animal, where things only happen through the intermediary of
certain phaneres reference points, which, certainly, must lead to some failures! In any case, the virtue of what I have thus articulated is not completely disappointing. I mean that these signifiers, designed so that one presents and represents to the other, in the pure state, the opposite sex, already exist at the cellular level! They are called sexual chromosomes! It would be surprising if we were able one day, with some chance of certainty, to establish that the origin of language - namely, what happens before it engenders the (9) subject - had some relation with these operations of matter which give us the aspects that we find in the union of sexual cells. We are not at that point and we have other things to do! Simply, let us not be surprised at the distance we are at from this level, in which there would be manifested, in short, something which is not at all designed not to seduce us, at this level where there could be designated something which might be called "the transcendence of matter". Believe me, I am not the one who invented that, it already appeared in some other people. Simply if I do not designate this extreme point while expressly underlining that it is completely unresolved that the bridge has not been made - it is simply to mark for you that on the contrary, in the order of what is called more or less properly thinking, people have, throughout the course of the centuries - I mean those that we know about at least - never done anything other than talk as if this point had been resolved! For centuries, knowledge, under a more or less masked form, a more or less imaged, a more or less contraband one, never did anything other than parody what would be involved if the sexual act existed to the point which allows us to define what is involved, as the Hindus say, between Purusha and Parakrita, between animus and anima, and all the rest of the music! What is required of us, is to do more serious work. Work that is required simply by the following. The fact is that between this interplay of primordial meanings, as they might be inscribable in terms. I underline, implying some subject, well then, we are separated from it by the whole thickness of something that you can call, as
you wish, the flesh or the body, on condition of including in it the specific things contributed by our condition as mammals, namely, a quite specific and in no way necessary condition, as the abundance of a whole kingdom proves to us (I am speaking about the animal kingdom). Nothing implies the form that the subjectification of the sexual function takes on for us, nothing implies that what comes into play here, symbolically, is necessarily linked to it. It is enough to reflect on what this might be in an insect and, moreover, besides, the images which may depend on it let us not deprive ourselves of using them - to make there appear, in phantasy, one of other singular trait of our relations to sex. So then, I took one of the two paths offered to me earlier. I am not sure that I was right. Now I have to take up the other again; the other and in order to designate for you why the One comes here on the right of the o, at this point that I designated as representing here locally, by a signifier, the fact of sex. There is here a surprising convergence between what is really at stake - namely, what I am in the process of telling you - and what I would call on the other hand the major point of psychoanalytic abjection. I ought to say that you owe it uniquely to Jacques-Alain Miller, who made a reasoned index of my Ecrits, that it does not have the alphabetical index at which I would have, (10) I ought to say, however little, exulted in imagining it beginning with the word abjection. It never happened. It is not a reason why this word should not take its place. The One that I am putting here - through a purely mathematical reference, I mean that it images simply the fact that in order to talk about the incommensurable I have to have a unit of measure and there is no unit of measure that is better symbolised that by the One - the subject in the form of its support the small o is measured, is measured by sex (se mesure au sexe) - you should understand that as if one were to say that he is measured by the bushel or by the pint. That is what the One is: the sex unit, nothing more! Well then, this One is not nothing. It is always a matter of knowing the degree to which it converges, as I
said earlier, with this One which reigns at the very mental foundation of psychoanalysts, to this day, in the form of the unitive virtue, which is supposed to be at the source of everything that they unfold in terms of a discourse on sexuality. The vanity of the formula that sex "unites" is not enough. It is also necessary that the primordial image of it should be given them by ... the fusion from which the enjoyer of his enjoyment (jouissade) is supposed to benefit: the little baby in its mother's womb (where no one up today has been able to bear witness that it is in any more comfortable position than is the mother herself in carrying it); and where there is supposed to be exemplified what you heard again here, last year, in the discourse of M Conrad Stein (whom, moreover, we have not seen since, to my regret), as necessary for psychoanalytic thinking, as representing this lost Paradise of the fusion of the ego and the non-ego, which, I repeat, in listening to them, the psychoanalysts, is supposed to be the cornerstone (la pierre angulaire), without which nothing could even be thought about the economy of the libido for this is what is at stake! I think that there in here a veritable touchstone - I take the opportunity to signal it to whoever intends to follow me. The fact is that anyone who remains in any way attached to this schema of primary narcissism, my well put in his buttonhole all the Lacanian carnations he wants, the aforesaid person has nothing to do, from near or far, with what I am teaching. I am not saying that this question of primary narcissism, is not something that poses a question in the economy of the theory and deserves one day to be emphasised. I am beginning today precisely, by remarking that if jouissance-value takes its origin in the lack marked by the castration complex - in other words, the prohibition of auto-eroticism being brought to bear on a precise organ, which only plays there the role and the function of introducing this element of unit (unite) at the inauguration of a status of exchange, from which there depends everything that is going to be subsequently economy, in
the speaking being whom we are dealing with in sex - it is clear that the important thing is to see the reversal which results from it. Namely, that it is in so far as the phallus designates - from something raised to a value, by this less which the castration complex constitutes - this something which constitutes precisely the distance between the small o and the unit of sex. (11) It is starting from there, as the whole experience teaches us, that the individual (l'etre) who is going to come, to be raised, to the function of partner - in this test to which the subject is put, of the sexual act - the woman, to image my discourse, is going to take on, for her part, her value as object of jouissance. But, at the same time and by the same operation, look at what has happened. It is no longer a matter of he enjoys (il jouit); he enjoys something (il jouit de). Jouissance has passed from the subjective to the objective, to the point of sliding to the sense of possession, in the typical function, as we have to consider it as deducible from the incidence of the castration complex and - I already brought this forward the last time - it is constituted by this change of direction which makes of the sexual partner a phallic object. A point I am only highlighting here, in the direction of the "man" to the "woman" (both in inverted commas), in so far as it is here that the operation is, as I might say, most scandalous. For it can be articulated, of course, just as much in the other direction, except that the woman does not have to make the same sacrifice, since it is already attributed to her, at the beginning. In other words, I am underlining the position of what I would call the male fiction, which can be expressed more or less as follows: "one is what has" (on est ce qui a). There is no one happier than a chap who has never seen further than the end of his nose and who expresses a provocative formula like that: "to have or not" ... "one is what has". The one who has you know what ... And then: "one has what is". The two things hold up. "What is", is the object of desire: it is the woman.
What I should call this simplistic fiction is being seriously revised. For some time people have noticed that it is a little bit more complicated. But, again, in a report named "Direction of the treatment and the principles of its power", I thought I had to re-articulate with care that people do not seem to have seen very clearly what is involved in what I would oppose to this male fiction, as being - to take up one of my words from the last time - the value homme-elle: "one is not what one has" (on n'est pas ce qu'on a ). This is not altogether the same sentence, pay attention, huh? "One is what has", but "one is not what one has". In other words, it is in so far as the man has the phallic organ that he is not it. Which implies that, on the other hand, one can and even one is what one has what one does not have. Namely, it is precisely in so far as she does not have the phallus that the woman can take on its value. Such are the points that it is extremely necessary to articulate at the start of any induction into what the unconscious says about sex, because this is properly what we have learnt to read in its discourse! Only, where I speak about castration complex - with, of course, all the litigiousness that it involves, for the least that one can say is that it may lend, however little, to an error about the person, especially on the male side, concerning what Genesis describes for us so well, namely, the woman conceived of as this something of which the body of man has been deprived. (This is called, in (12) this chapter that you know well, a "rib", for the sake of modesty!) What has to be seen, is that in any case, where I speak about the castration complex as original in the economic function of jouissance, the psychoanalyst gargles the term of "objectal libido". The important thing is to see that if there is something that deserves this name, it is precisely the carry-over of this negatived function which is grounded in the castration complex. The jouissance-value prohibited at the precise point, at the organ-point constituted by the phallus, is what is brought forward as "objectal libido" contrary to what is said, namely, that the libido described as
narcissistic is supposed to be the reservoir from which there has to be extracted what will be objectal libido. This may appear as a subtlety to you. Because after all, you will tell me, if, as regards narcissism, there is the libido which is brought to bear on one's own body, well hen - even though you specify things - it is a part of this libido that is at stake, you will tell me. In what I am presently stating, it is nothing of the kind! Very precisely because to tell you that one thing is extracted from another, it would be necessary to suppose that it is purely and simply separated from it by way of what is called a cut, but not simply by a cut, by something which subsequently plays the function of an edge. Now this is precisely what is debatable and not simply what is debatable, but what is already settled. The fact is that there is no homomorphism, there is no structure such that the phallic scrap (as one might say) is graspable in the same way as a part of narcissistic investment. The fact is that it does not constitute this edge, which is what we must maintain between what allows narcissism to construct this false assimilation of the one to the other which is the doctrine in the traditional theories of love. The traditional theories of love, in effect, leave the object of the good within the limits of narcissism.
1967-04-26 Lacan Seminar 14: The Logic of Fantasy 18
Seminar 18: Wednesday, April 26, 1967 While what was on the board was being cleaned off. I made this drawing for you. This drawing is incomplete. But let us not lose time. It is incomplete in the sense that it is not finished. The same length One that defines the field of small o ought to be reproduced here, but I began it too far out. I already sufficiently indicated to you that these two segments, namely, this one aid the one that is not finished, are, if you wish qualified as One and the Other the Other in the sense that I ordinarily understand it, the locus of the Other, capital O -the locus where
there is articulated the signifying chain and the truth that it supports. These are the terms of the essential dyad in which the drama of the subjectification of sex has to be forged. Namely, what we have been in the process of speaking about for a month and a half Essential, for those who have their ears formed to Heideggerian terms - which, as you will see, are not my privileged references novertheless, for those, I mean, not an essential dyad in the sense of what is, but in the sense of what -it has to be said in German - of what west, as Heidegger expresses it, in a fashion, moreover, that is already forced with respect of the German tongue. Let us say, of what operates as sprache, the connotation left to Heidegger, of the term language. What is at stake is nothing other than the economy of the unconscious, or indeed what is commonly called primary process. Let us not forget that for these terms - those that I have just put forward like those of the dyad, of the dyad from which we start, of the One and the Other; the One as I specifically articulated it the last time and that I am going, moreover, to take up again, the Other, in the use that I have always made of it - let us not forget, I am saying, that we have to start from their effect. Their effect has this derisory aspect that it lends itself to the crude metaphor that it is the child itself. The subjectification of sex gives birth to nothing, except misfortune. But what it has already produced, what is given to us in a univocal fashion in psychoanalytic experience, is the waste product from which we start as a necessary supporting point to reconstruct the whole logic of this dyad. This, in allowing (2) ourselves to be guided by what this object is the cause of - you know it, properly speaking - is the cause of, namely, the phantasy. Logic - if it is true that I can pose as its initial thesis, as I do, that there is no metalanguage - this is what logic means: that one can extract from language, specifically, the loci and the points where, as one might say, language speaks of itself. And this indeed is the way that it is expanding in our day. When I say "expanding in our
day" it is because it is obvious. You have only to open a book of logic to see that it has no pretension to be any thing else - nothing ontic, in any case, scarcely ontological. On this point, all the same, betake yourself, since I am going to give you a two week break, to a reading of the Sophist - I mean Plato's dialogue - to know the degree to which this formula is correct I am saying, as regards logic, and that its start does not date, therefore, from today or yesterday. You will understand that it is, in fact, from this dialogue, the Sophist, that Martin starts - I mean, Martin Heidegger - in his restoration of the question of being. And, after all, it would be a no less salubrious discipline for you, to read, since my lack of information has meant that, having only recently received it through a press service, it is only today that I can advise you to read the Introduction to metaphysics, in the excellent translation that Gilbert Kahn has made of it. I say "excellent", because in truth he did not try to do the impossible and, for all the words for which it is impossible to give an equivalent, except an equivocal one, he has calmly forged or reforged French words as he could, even if it entails a lexicon at the end to give us the exact German reference. But all of this is only a parenthesis. This eatyread - which perhaps could be contested about Hiedegger's other texts, but I assure you that this one is extraordinarily easy, and it even has a very clear cutting note of facility - it is impossible to render more transparent the way in which he intends that there should be re-posed at our historical turning point, the question of Being. It is certainly not that I think that what is at stake hire is anything other than an exercise in reading, and I have just said that it is very salubrious. It cleans up many things, but it nonetheless goes astray by giving the simple instruction of a return to Parmenides and Heraclitus -however brilliantly he situates them - at the level precisely of this meta-discourse that I am speaking about as immanent to language. It is not a metalanguage. The metadiscourse
immanent to language that I call logic, is of course something that deserves to be refreshed at such a reading. Certainly, I do not use - as you notice - in any way the etymological procedure, by which Heidegger makes admirably relive the formulae described as pre-Socratic. It is because, as a matter of fact, the direction that I intend to indicate differs, differs (3) from his, precisely in something which is irreversible, and which the Sophist indicates - it also is an extraordinarily easy read and which does not fail also to make its reference to Parmenides - precisely to mark how far and how alive it was against this defence that Parmenides expresses in these two verses: "No, you will never bend by force non-beings to being; From this path of research set aside your thinking." It is precisely the route opened, opened by the Sophist that is imposed on us, properly speaking, on us analysts, in order for us simply to know what we are dealing with. If I had succeeded in making a psychoanalyst literate, I would have won the game. Namely, that from then on, the person who is not a psychoanalyst would become, by that very fact, an illiterate. Let the numerous literati who people this room reassure themselves, they still have their little remainder! The psychoanalyst must to come to conceive of the nature of what he is handling, as this dross (scorie) Being, this rejected stone which becomes the cornerstone aid which is properly what I am designating by the oobject. And that it is a product - I am saying, product - of the operation of language, in the sense in which the term product is required in our discourse by the raising, since Aristotle, of the dimension of ergon, exactly, of work. It is a matter of re-thinking logic starting from this small o. Since this small o - though I have named it, I did not invent it - is properly what has fallen into the hands of analysts, starting from the experience they have gone through in what is involved in the sexual thing. Everyone knows what I mean and, what is more, they talk only of that. Since analysis, this small o, is yourselves! I am saying, each one of you, in your essential kernel. It
puts you back on your feet, as they say, it puts you back again bin your feet of desire, from the delusion about the celestial sphere, of the subject of knowledge. This having been said, it explains, and it is the only valid explanation, why, as metaphorical reasons. For the small o is the metaphorical child of the One and the Other, in so far as it is born as a piece of refuse from the inaugural repetition, which, in order to be repetition, requires this relation of the One to the Other, a repetition from which there is born the subject. The real reason for the reference to the child in psychoanalysis is not therefore in any case along the grain of the C.I., the promised prize of becoming a happy swine which seems to Mr Erik Eriksoni to be a sufficient motive for his cogitations and his labours. But, simply this problematic essence, the o-object whose exercises stupefy us, naturally, not just anywhere at all: in the phantasies, very amply put into effect, of the child! That it is at their level that one sees the operations and the paths best opened out: but it is at their level that one sees the operations and the paths best opened out: but it is necessary fort hat to receive confidences which are nod within the reach of the child psychologist. In short, it is this that ensures that the word soul has, n the slightest sexual frolicking of the child - in his perversion as they say - the single, the unique and the only worthy presence that should be accorded to this word, the word soul. (4) So then, as I said the last time, the One is simply, in this logic, the coming into play of the operation of measurement, of the value to be given to this small o in this operation of language which is going to be, in short what else is proposed to us? - the attempt to reintegrate this small o into what! Into this universe of language, as regards which I already posed at the start of this year, what! That it does not exist! That it does not exist, why? Precisely because of the existence of the little o-object, as effect. Therefore, a contradictory and despairing operation, and happily the simple existence of arithmetic,
people have perceived, recently it has to be said, that the universe of discourse does not exist. So then, how do things present themselves at the start of this attempt? What does it mean to write since we need this One and because we will be content with it to measure the little o-object - the following: One plus o equals One over small o? You may well suspect that once my theory starts to become an object of serious questioning on the part of logicians, there will be a lot to be said on the introduction here of three signs which are drawn as plus, equal, and also the bar between the I and the small o. These are tests as regards which it is necessary, provisionally - so that my course does not extend indefinitely that you should have confidence that I have done them for myself, only allowing to appear here the points at the level at which they may be useful to you. It must be remarked, nevertheless, that if - since this comes up all by itself and because really it is more coiveinint, (we still have a long enough path to take) - I inscribe here, quite simply, the formula which is found to overlap what I called the greatest incommensurable or again the golden number, which designates very properly speaking the following: that of two magnitudes, the relationship o the bigger to the smaller, of the One to the o on this occasion, is the same as that of their sum to the greater, that if I operate in this way, it is not in order to get across - too quickly moreover - hypotheses which it would be a great pity for you to take as decisive, I mean for you to believe too much in thus paradigm, which simply is intended to make function, for a time, for you, the small o-object, as incommensurable to what is at stake: its reference to sex. It is under this heading that the One - this sex (and its enigma) - is charged with overlapping it. But nothing indicates, moreover, in the formula one plus small o equals One over small o, that we can immediately make enter into it the mathematical notion of proportion. As long as we have not expressly written it, which implies this writing as it is here, for someone who reads it at the level of its usual mathematics, namely, that
it is One plus small o over One equals One over small o. As long as this 1 is not (5) inscribed, the formula can be considered as much less tight. It indicates nothing other than the fact that it is from the rapproghement of the done te this small o, that we intend to see there emerging something else. What? Why not, on this occasion , that the One represents the small o. I scarcely ever use my symbolisations at random. And if those here can remember the symbolisations that I gave of the metaphor, they will recall that after all, when I write the sequence of signifiers, with the indication that this chain includes underneath a substituted signifier, and that it is from this substitution that it results that the new signifier substitutes for capital S - let us call it S' - because of what it contains of the signifier for which it is substituted, takes on the value of this something - that I already connoted as S' (1/s) - takes on the value of the origin of a new signified dimension which belongs to neither one nor the other of the two signifiers in questions. Does it not appear that something analogous, which would only be properly here the emergence of the dimension of measure or of proportion, as original meaning, is implied in this moment of interval which, after having written 1 + o = 1/o, completes it with the One which was absent from it even though immanent, and which, because of being distinguished in this second moment, takes on the figure of the function here of the signifier sex as repressed. It is in the measure that the relation t the enigmatic One, taken here in its pure conjunction, One plus small o, can, in our symbolism, imply a function of the One as representing the enigma of sex qua repressed, and that this enig
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.