250pages Complete Asasi 5 DAYS

Asansi Lacan on Desire 1
Lacan texts (Session 1): La famila, La instancia de la letra o la razón desde Freud, Funcion y Campo
de la palabra, and The Seminars.
Picture of Sausserian Sign.
Signified
Signifier
36:50min Language as the instrument through which we make manifest/express our feelings,
concepts, affects, moods, problems etc.
39:40min The centrality of language, and pathologies: Afasia etc.
50:40min We exist as a desire of our parents before the moment of conception, during it, and
after.
57:30min The imaginary function: how does a blind kid is able to recognize his body, what about a
sighted kid? Autoerotism, self-referentiality, modalities of being felt etc.
1:16:10min The first Other is language itself

1:23:00min The real as that which cannot be hallucinated, beyond the productions of the
representations of hallucinations, the imaginary, and the symbolic. On the side of the symbolic we
have the the (law sorry, language) language you speak and language itself: el language y la lengua.
The retroactive movement of validating the message, or, not. Of the algorithmic active function of
the Autre, or, Code. It is the case that it is valid, or, it is not the case that it is valid. “You should
have said “mierda” “shit” instead of “shut” or “muerda” “ate”.
1:45:40min Lacan criticizes Freud. There is no such thing as pre-oedipal and post-oedipal stages.
There are 3 stages of Oedipus. The Oedipus complex is a constant.
1:49:00 and onwards aprox. The birth of the unconscious after the identification with the breat of
the mother is removed, or, such identification disrupted via weening.
Day 2.
Seminar 5 as key
2:10min “El significante estaba en lo real y de ahi saca la realidad. No hubiera realidad si no fuera
por esta marca que llamamos significante”
From language to the signifier. Language as connceted to the law. Not very difficult to see given
that language has rules of grammar that must be obeyed. And with them “appropriate” ways of
saying things: even though they may be expressed in a number of different ways.
What we call the ego is an instance that is beyond the limits of what can be said, the symbolic, and
the imaginary as being the register that allows us to understand the relation of the subject holds
with itself, and others.
Seminar 1 “Lo real o lo que es percibido como tal es lo se resiste, absolutamente, a la

simbolizacion” Lo simbolico es aquello que no puede ser halucinado por el sujeto ya que no entra
en el registro de lo imaginario y real.
Object a has three dimensións to it: symbolic, imaginary and real. And it is that feature that holds
each of the registers together.
Lacan taking the concept of the Real from Bataille´s “Accursed share”: a remainder that lacks
structure, unsymbolized, apeiron. And if outside symbolization, unindividuated, it cannot be
registered.
If a shidzoid, or, psychotic patient hears, and sees things you do not it is because he lacks an
element that enables to structure the field of what can be seen, and heard: the n.o.f. Ravinovich´s
logical operator that enables the kid to register what is human language, and not. The absence of a
master signifier capable of organizing the field of vision. How it applies to surveillance capitalism,
their incestual violence, and absence of presence of N.O.F. in what they do.
In psychosis, and depression the person confronts that which resists symbolization. One could say
that the giving the real a name may be somewhat problematic given that it seems some “x” is
being individuated.
21:20min Why do we begin to stop talking about language, and begin to talk about “the signifier”?
When we cease to talk about language, and Lacan inverts Saussere´s sign, we stop talking about
language, and begin to talk about a master sig that organizes the field of vision, and that of sense.
The signifier organizes the extensional, and intensional semantic.
There are 3 operations, or, functions that characterize the master signifier. In the graph of day one
the first thing would be: the retroactive grammatical line that moves from left to right: S to S´.
The signifier “cornudo”. It is a sort of cringe signifier that glorifies the person that exploits moral
faculties. It is very ideological: of incestuality. It has a traditional, objective history: its use, and
how it relates to the personal history of the subect.
Cuerno at zero: empty. Then retroactively signified as “Buffalo have small horns”. Then the sig
“horn” generates another retroactive signification of “horns” “tener ----------” cuernos”
So, we have a factual use of the sig “horn” and it retroactivizes to the cultural-traditional use as it
relates to who the are to each other: the foundation of their identities at stake as it were. The
master-slave circulation of the phallus of this relation.
A signifier is not that which a person uses to talk to another person. A signifier is that which
represents the subject for another signifier. In the case above: one signifier representing the
subject for the next one. In order to “speak to another signifier”. It is the opposite end of the
relation with language.
As shown above the signifier uses the person in order to carry the conversation to the relation
between both. It happens in such a way that the person sees himself unable, but to feel the
objective effects of the signifier.
The marca del significante pushed him where the signifier wanted to take him. You will notice he
will say “I do not know how we ended up in that direction”. Notice that no one had the intension
of unleashing the debate that did in fact take place.
37:27min What we are saying here is that the person, or, the subject is the retroactive effect of
that particular interpretation of “horns”.
Like Bolderman what we are saying is that “we say what language will allow us to say at all”.
Notice the degree of separation, and antagonism implied.
The subject is the one that receives a linguistic expression from the other where the only thing he
is exposed to is “buffalos have small horns”. He is lead to a particular interpretation, his libidinal
status, because in language the analogy in the paradigmatic axis, already exists between “horns”
and “unfaithful”
40:05min Just because the subject is an effect of the signifier, alienating entry in it, does not mean
that he cannot operate on the material. In fact psychoanalysis does display this can be done within
the position of the ethical subject.
41:48min The signifier uses a particular subject in order to rertoactivized itself into another
signifier. This unconscious multiplier effect chain is what governs the logic of particular modalities
of identification with the fantasmatic formation. In this instance, the subject, is the victim of the
process, combinatorial, of the signifier.
42min aprox There is an entire dynamics, syntactical set of defining computational procecures,
that escapes the subject, as individual, with the term “horn”, and other set of terms of which the
subject is not completely conscious, about which, he, or, she are not completely conscious. And
these set of connected by a logic of combinatory signifiers make the person susceptible to have a
particular kind of reaction. To determine, and retroactivize him in a particular way.
When I said that the subject is victim of the signifier what I had to say was that the signifier of
which he was a victim was a signifier in posicion inconciente. A signifier, phallic sig, of which the
person is unconsciously identified with.
It is here that we see why the signifier preceeds sense. La precedencia del significante con respect
al campo del sentido. Why Lacan inverts the Sausserian algorithm.
44:28min Analysis of the jokes graph. It explains how the signifier in an unconscious position
affects the subject, or, person. It is expanded upon on Seminar 5.
A stands for the Autre. This graph attempts to show how we are affected by the signifier. Seminar
5 dedicates itself to explaining this.
In the “ego and the id” Freud explains not everything of the entity we understand as “ego” is
conscious. Lacan splits is between moi, and je. The “je” to the extent that it belongs to the
unconscious register it is responsible for disrupting the message we attempted to generate once
we pass through the Other.
52min The signifier as a symptom of “the body”? Yes, but we are not sure of what body. It is
ungrounded retroactively grouding itself in a real/gap, and generating it. Being before, and after
the signifier. That is why he says unfortunatedly we do not know of “what is it that it is a symptom
of”
The demand of the other 55:40min. The need approaches the code to articulate a demand, and
you say instead of “I love you Rose” you end up saying “I am in love with you Tina Fey”. The lapsus
is the beta prime, to the left of the graph, that disrupts the original message, and articulates the
demand of the other. The beta prime is the interference in the message made by that which we
call “the unconscious ego”.
In normal French je is interchangeable for moi as in “moi je parle” or “yo soy el que hablo” more
literally “mio es aquello de lo que yo hablo” or “It is me the one that speaks”. In Lacan moi is
equivalent, or, to be understood as the conscious ego. And the je as the unconscious-ego. The moi
is to be found at the point of departure before attempting to articulate itself via the code. On the
bottom right hand corner. The je (beta) is on the right side of the graph that will disrupt the moi,
you will see the arrow heading to beta prime, and this je, to the extent that it is unconscious, is
responsible for interfering in the message that we enunciate and generate a sort of metaphorical
substitution in the form of a lapsus: saying one thing instead of saying the other.
59:10min We talk about a lapsus given that is one of the most clear things that we can talk about:
forgetfulness being articulated into an objective shape. Or objectifying itself in the world (a
modality of desconocimiento?). But the graph displays how other symptoms articulate themselves
in the analytical experience. It is clear that, in this instance, inhibition is also a factor in articulating
what takes place.
So, you can have cases when if someone is madly in love with someone else this very same person
experiences impotence when they finally get a chance to have sex with them. Any modality of
interference, whether it be physical, or, linguistic are all parts of the message coded. What we call
gamma does not limit itself to the fact of speaking, but that of also objectifying itself into the
world aka that of acting: making things happen.
Every act we execute in the world, that is objectified thought, is also a message. So, if we send a
message to someone through whatss app. We send it, and we do not receive a reply. We see the
two blue arrows on it (it has been received), but we do not get an answer. Is the latter not a
message? They have read it, but not answered.
Kinda related to answering the Che Vuoi?
1:01:36min In gamma we may place things like anxiety. The entire text of Freud entitled
“Inhibition, Symptom, and Anxiety” may be read in the same key as the symptoms he talked about
in “Psychopathology of Everyday Life” the latter being the ones we have just dealt with. Just as we
have people that are disrupted at the linguistic level they suffer symptoms at the physical level:
hysterical symptoms.
Case: A woman has a turbulent relation with her husband. She refuses to remain quiet, and
refuses to sleep, and eat, because it implies that she will not be able to talk. Kinda collpases goes
into a psychiatric hospital: the use electro-shock (they actually wanted to do this to Bruce.
Minerva insisted on it a multiple number of times while we were being tortured etc), and meds.
She manages to intuitively (anger at Joyce: it took him 10yrs of detailed work, with the help of
others. But it has been denigrated since he came out with it) escape the hospital take her kid go to
the church and demand the priest to baptize him. And only after she manages to do so she is able
to stop speaking. It was a set of objectified thoughts into acts. Her desire was to baptize the kid,
and until this was not so she would not go quiet. The beta disrupting, and letting out her
unconscious desire. Jacques-Alain Miller parole is drive.
Always rotating within the imaginary to disrupt their relation to the symbolic: absolute sexuel non-
rapport. They are castrated out of 2dary identification. Their cultural identity is always exposed as
non-existent, and they have veil via making the victim, in action, the Other that will sanction their
dream-logic madness that does not address the truth as being valid, or, not. This is a “to be seen”
in order to be sanctioned drive. Everything that they do negates their cultural identity, the code,
the Autre. They move to the second part of the graph, with S(Ө) = S1-S4.
1:05:03min What is a symptom? A symptom is what is exposed to analysis. Before that are
messages of the future: as subject as a will have been that which may be exposed to analysis.
Given that the latter is the concrete, from beginning to end, manifestation upon which you may
operate.
1:06:15min A signifier may also not limit itself to be, as x-0, linguisitic. It may be an image. As
those images on the door of a bathroom. Signifying images. Or the phallic signifier that organizes
the field of what may be perceived, registerable, and signified.
1:07:00min This beta graph, or, graph of the jokes explains displacement. From “buffalo horns” to
“horns” as in cheating. This modalities of displacement will take place via metonymy, or, via
substitution aka metaphor.
The way the metonymical function is read: Moving outwards, and then in. F for signifying function
F (S….S´) Sα Ξ S (-) (s)
Signifying function = F of ´S´-alpha. In summary the signifying function of one signifier, leftward
most S inside the parenthesis, for another signifier S´ inside the parenthesis. The “….” = a
particular mathematico-logical operation called “contiguity” which will enable the operation of
metonymical substitution. And this substitution leads to the generation of another signifier (S (-)
S
s)) which may be also be written as . It also has the minus, because in metonymical substitution
s
you select a single feature of the whole in order to substitute the totality, a kind of sublime object,
ex: “We will be using the most reliable ship” substituted for “We will be using the most reliable
sails”. Each metonymical operation brings forth a new: displacement, symptom (an unconscious
modality of linguistic identification), word. It brings forth a new S1 signifier.
1:14:43min Metaphor formula.
The symptom is that metaphor that says more than what it states (surplus signification)
There is a rotation of signifiers in metonymy. Ex: The signifier “ship” is particularized in a concept.
The latter constituted by other nouns etc. One of them may become the signigier for “ship” itself.
“The Sails”. There has been a set of transformations, or, dialectical shifting of what the signifier is,
or, has been.
After that questions
Instead of saying “you are really ten(m)d(p)er” you say “you are really temper” just two letters
modify the entire meaning. What you want to say vs what is actually said (what is in parenthesis)
“Querer (lo dicho) decir” is a good condensation of the graph we have been studying. What we
want to say is effectively “cut”/disrupted for what is actually said, or, objectified in the real world
in what the addressee interprets.
1:26:56min Beta and Delta represent two different types of needs. We have two types of needs
one which belongs to the conscious, and the unconscious registers. The unconscious arises out of
two operations: incest prohibition, and the threat of castration.
Incest prohibition that leads to letting go of the lost object, leads to repression (negation). What
the code is unable to sanction as culturally legitimate is what is severed from the message, and
falls outside into a position we will call unconscious. It is not approved, because it does not obey
the law. It does not meet its standards. It does not enter into what the law delimits as that which
is possible (related, perhaps, to the reality principle) self-reflexiveness.
1:33:06min
1:34:00min If instead of saying “Tu desprendes mucha ternura” I end up saying “Tu desprendes
mucha ternera” the other acting as the sanctioning code will not accept it. It will enter not
registering it, estupefacto.
The graph above displays both the topological representation of the conscious, and unconscious
register. At the end of this section you will see that the most unnerving aspect of this graph, what
it says about us, is that there exists a demand, and unconscious desire that insists above, and
beyond out intentions, and will.
Beta, and Beta prime have vanished. They have helped us understand how, in a message, what is
produced is something that one did not want, or, intended to say, but is nevertheless generated,
and that in the moment of it being sanction the other goes “what is this?. This does not make
sense. It is simply not admissible”
I if intent to say “you radiate a great deal of tenderness” and what ends up objectifying itself in the
world is “you radiate a great deal of tantruminess” clearly in the moment at which it must be
sanction by the code the code will not be able to recognize it. It will experience a moment of non-
identity with it. If you are talking to the girl you like and you say “Rosita” instead of “Eugenia”
Oh, yeah an the issue of the other saying “no don’t try to get yourself out of what you have just
said”. It does point to some implicit notions about identification, and the degree of control we
excert, imaginary, over what we say. The absolute degree of fantasized control over it also displays
a degree of commonsensical ideology residing within the other person. As Eidelzstein talked about
dreams and the Greeks.
He then explains that the lapsus, rupture between what you wanted to say, and what you said,
was, or, could have been so big that the person enunciating it might have not have heard it. This
has to do with the ego as a self-reflexively constructed entity, via a sig, that is the entity that
defines what you hear intelligibly, or, not. It can really be the case that what you heard was
“tenderness” rather than what you actually said. The fact that you heard “tenderness” implies the
su
Dia 3
We now have a better idea as to why the signifier is situated (isolated) in the unconscious position
in the upper part of the register. It is always good to think about Lacan´s formula
S
s
The signifier (bar = hence = therefore) separated from the signified. Remember the dots, and
dashes are randomizing Either/or positions. The signified being what you want to say, or, what the
unconscious desire, demand, gets to make manifest.
We have attempted to go through a synchronic explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQoVZ4iWGVE
Diachronic analysis: The study of the general evolution of all languages. How all of them may
particularize themselves in the ruling ideas of the day. Modalities of organizing enabling fantasies
so people may serve certain roles, and functions while they veil. The evolution of a particular
language and how it generates dialects. Diachronic explanations may look like how word order
changed (computations of plus, or, minuses, and functions) from old, middle to modern English.
The past few sessions he has concentrated in a diachronical analysis of the Other as language, and
what perhaps has made it difficult to understand is the absence of the introduction of the 3
temporal phases of the Oedipus complex. Oedipus is a given in Lacan.
Taking as our point of departure the fact that the Signifier is barred from the signified, separated,
and different in the way we have specified. Now that we know it occupies an unconscious position
we may introduce Lacan´s axiom of “The Unconscious (Upper register) is structure as a language”
A paradox presents itself to us once again, and that is that, the unconscious is made up of
signifying elements, signifying traces, signifying mark (an indication or sign of a particular thing),
and every signifier is a language to the extent that it is governed, or, subjected to the laws of the
signifier (metaphor, and metonymy at least)
We are not saying the unconscious is a language, but organized according to, some “x”, is
organized according to the rules of language. It is like, as if, it was a language. It is similar to
language. The unconscious contains, and is organized, by the laws of language as they function in
the signifier (think of dream-logic. It is like a language. But you cannot bring it into consciousness
at the same level of conscious speech. You have to attempt to figure out how to interpret it) it
lacks the signified. The signified being the crucial feature of anything we treat as language. It is a
crucial part of it, output, for self-reflexiveness. A language is always made up of a siginifier, and a
signified. Of a particular expression, and a content, or, the way the expression will particularize
itself into a specific meaning. Made up of Res (things: vowels?) and Verba (words: combinations of
letters according to rules) as the classics used to say.
The unconscious is like a language, because it has this dimension we just mention of: verba, but
not of res. The laws of the signifier are the laws of the signifier, and those of metonymy
The set of, what we now understand as displacement (the buffalo horns example) in a signifying
chain.
So, we can say “The unconscious is structure as a language”, because it contains within itself the
autonomous laws of language that govern the signifier (like the commutative laws: a + b = b +a, or,
distributitve laws in arithmetic [found in logic] a (b+c) = b (a+c))
5:14min Lacan´s quote (in it he says the unconscious is a signifying chain): “Es una cadena de
significantes que algun sitio, o, en otro escenario se repite e insiste para interferer en el lugar del
mensaje. Es querer decir, en los cortes (lapsus, mistakes, interferences) que le ofrece el discurso
efectivo (conscious discourse)” “The unconscious is a signifying chain that, being situated in some
place, in another scene, repeats itself, and insists on repeating itself in the same manner in order
to interfere (lapsus, mistakes, interferences( at the s(A) site of the message ” this is the reason
why we have talked about this independent will (demand) that sustains itself, and death-drive
loops itself, over, and over again.
6:59min Continuing to quote “En esta formula, que solo es nuestra, por tanto conformarse al texto
Freudiano como a la experiencia que la abrió el termino decisivo es el significante. Reanimando
con ello la retorica antigua, tal y como a hecho la lingüística moderna, la doctrina cuyas etapas no
podemos señalar aquí, pero en la que los nombres de Saussere y Jakobson, indicaran su aurora
(too much fantasmatic) anger y su actual culminación”
“It is in this formula, that only belongs to us (analysis, or, specific to analysis), given that it adhears
as much to the Freudian text as it does to the experience that spawned said text, (the formula
goes as follows) the decisive term is the signifier. Reanimating with it the (study) rhetoric of
antiquity, just as it has been done by modern linguistics, a doctrine whose stages of development I
am unable to elaborate at length at the moment, but a doctrine in which the names of Saussere
and Jakobson, will manage to reveal to us its halo, and the way in which its development has been
brought to fruition”
That term arrives from that field of study opened up by Structuralism. Within it we find the
development of the laws of metaphor, and metonymy. We also find it in the studies known as
“Russian Formalism” where what was crucial was the rules, or, laws that organized the text the
reader was exposed to not so much the content of the text. Hence the importance given to the
signifier.
8:50min Lacan will have to transform, and take from this tradition, and adjust it to the needs of
analysis. They will be reformulated to the point where they will be difficult to recognize them
anylonger. This might be so, but Asansi is still able to trace them back to the source from which
Lacan took them. So we have message as s(A), and code as Autre etc.
The phrase “The Unconscious is structure as a language” appears in the Seminar 11 “The Four
Fundamental Concepts Of Psychoanalysis”. It can also be found in Seminar 5 and in Ecrits.
Jakobson has a text on “Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances” where he
talks about two main poles in language, or, two main neurolinguistics poles. The pole of
combination (combinatorics in Lacan for the signifier) and the pole of association (perhaps related
to the associative rule in the algebra of thought, or, logic. Also in arithmetic). He explains that
there is loss incurred in the site of linguistic memory either because you find a failure, aphasia,
rooted in a disruption of the functioning of the associative, or, combinatory pole.
Aphasia is an impairment of language, affecting the production or comprehension of speech and

the ability to read or write. Aphasia is always due to injury to the brain-most commonly from a
stroke, particularly in older individuals.
What does Jakobson understand as metonimya, or, the syntagmatic axis.? The fact of putting one
word after the other: the capacity not to confuse what to put in subject + verb + adverb. Once we
look at how these operations are taking place or fail to do so we are in the realm of metonymy.
When we talk about the laws of the signifier we talk about then the operations that take place at a
“horizontal level” (think x- axis) and those operations taking place on the vertical axis (y-axis)
metaphor, or, condensation. Isomorphic relations. Summarizing what is found of language, in that
“x” we call the unconscious, are the laws of the signifier.
It is of notice that we can easily understand that there is no such as a “reality” without the
signifier. For example, we cannot distinguish two doors, one that reads men, and other, women
without the signifier. This outside world ceases to be readable, “navigatable”, without the
signifier. But if we move onto the psychic realm then everyone begins to find it problematic when
we talk about the absence of a mind if the signifier is not there.
The same goes for the “internal” psychic experience. Just as I am able to recognize which door is
which, because of the signifier I am only able to recognize the array of emotions, because of the
signifier. The set of possible affects are only distinguishable, because the signifier is present. What
I feel, and will feel.
What Lacan has done with his approach to “the mind” is get rid of an entity called “the psychic”.
This is what Lacan is not forgiven for in psychological circles. In psychological circles the human
mind as conceptualized by the term “psychic” is a sacred concept. It has ceased to be a scientific
concept as it were. As it relates to matters of pathology etc.
The point of departure are not: feelings, concepts, affects, the point of departure, in
understanding, is the signifier. The signifier may be “outside” or “inside”, but what matters is that
one begins with the signifier. Why is it that one is capable to distinguish love and hate? Both of
them affects? Passions? Because the signifier opposes love and hate. It is like talking about length,
and width of the same geometrical object as it were. Hate when the object, that used to be the
just an object under possessive control (“love”) awakens us from such a state, and presents itself
as a subject just like ourselves. Towards which we may owe ourselves in a particular way.
In any case, whether you loved, or, hated him much the point of departure is the binary
opposition. The door, as well as my affects are equally arrived at through the signifier, or, they,
both entitites, are both equally phenomenological.
14:51 Question: Do we need the signifier to know that something extist, or, do we need it to
understand something that we already know exists. The stage of grasping of whether it exists, or,
not preceeding the signifier. Let us say a blind-man. They know things exist. (I think an illiterate
man would be a better example).
Answer: Well, you tell me. The blind man can get into an elevator, and through the braille system,
thanks to the capacity to signify, he can make his way through it.
My comment: the same goes for the illiterate man. He may not read, but can engage in the most
elaborate of conversations needed to do what he, or, she must do. Even to go to the place to learn
how to read. But the latter needs the presence of the signifier already operative.
What we are saying is that the signifier generates what we call “reality” but it does not create, or,
generate the world, or, the cosmos that preceeded us.
For example, Plato says “how could I know what ´red´ is if I lack the idea of red itself. Not all things
are red in the same way. How am I capable of putting them all under the set of ´red things´” Plato
answers “because the idea of ´red´ preceeds the color red” (my comment: in the human
experience. Yes, you must learn it first. Get it from your parents etc) We can act as the censoring
Autre/Other for the kid and tell him, or, her “that is not yellow, that is red”, and once they are able
to understand it is the signifier that will deliver the color onto him in a sense.
Without the signifier we are in a psychotic position. Life appears strange to him. The psychotic is
understood as the person that lacks the signifier to be able to name, individuate things. And since
this is so he, or, she experience a high level of anxiety. My comment: there is no distance,
alienation, between you and the sense-data arriving to your nerve-ending from the mind-
independent world.
So, we may use curse-words to achieve the opposite of exclusion, but rather inclusion into our
word, into “reality” one is able to enter, and identify, and relate to a different world: slightly at a
difference, and more alienated from the mind independent world. We are no longer using words
to address that “outside”, but building, and relating to the shelter of humans, and domesticated
mammalian, build for themselves. Attempting to separate themselves from the forces of nature.
As soon as delta as need heads towards the code. And as soon as need turned into linguistic
demand is operative producing a message “Naomi Watts and friends are being harassed by ugly
people” desire in the upper register as (A ◊ D), or, “d” as desire is also operative. That is why you
see code as Autre, and desire on the right hand side on the same y-axis as it were. (A ◊ D) is
nothing else, but the code as Autre/Other only articulated with desire. Now taking,
transformational shape, in the form of desire.
Notice that we do not have dotted, or dashed lines leading from the code as Autre/Other to the
Autre ◊ D, A ◊ D. And what this means is that the passage from delta the code as Autre to the
Other articulated with unconscious desire (this split) is inevitable.
CONTINUE 21:16min.
So we have that the passage to the code as Other to the Other, now as, desire, but desire in an
unconscious position, or, unconscious desire is inevitable. This is a type of fact that one cannot
really do without.
Now, once we arrived at A ◊ D where are we going to end up next.? Well, if I had drawn this line
that goes from D´ to S´, this line is, now it can be seen much better than we had articulated earlier
on, because the history of language, the history of the signifier in unconscious position (in the
upper register) is retroactively signified following a motion from D´ to S´ and this trajectory
indicates that the signifier ends up landing in S´, or, a synchronic point. The point relating to how
language manifests itself, in analysis, right now. It relates the the now of the message in s(A).
What we are saying is that the history of language is also operative at the unconscious register.
And it does so at two levels.
It operates as a personal history. A history of the person that experiences himserlf, or, herself as
having the particular need that needs to find expression in an alien medium such as language. As
well as from the point of view of shareable language, or, what Wittgenstein would call something
like “the impossibility” of a private language.
Once again this code (A ◊ D) sends me to the signifier, or, S(A). The signifier that has been
repressed. The signifier in unconscious position. The signifier that is also, or, belongs to language.
To the Other. So, we have here two signifiers. To types of expression, two messages. Notice they
will both settle upon s(A). They will both converge upon this point. We have then two lines
approaching (simultaneously) the same site one from the conscious (generated there) register,
and another from the unconscious register.
For example: There are moments where you catch yourself almost saying the wrong name, and in
a self-reflexive move, you tell yourself “I caught myself in time”. Again, you know you are about to
say something that will bother the other person, but right at that point at which you are to allow
it, to punctuate it, you have this Ughhh pressure denying it. This uhmmm: biting lip moment. You
pull on the brakes of the horses, you tame your horses at that point, and keep it to yourself. You
get delivered from a moment of anxiety, having no longer being identified with the object of that
expression, and after your sigh you proceed to say what you wanted to say.
So, what is it that has taken place. You have two messages attempting to lodge themselves in that
s(A), and each one denies the other. On the one hand, in the example above, there is that thing
that you did not want to say from S(A) into s(A), and on the other hand we had the name that we
actually wanted to say: from need to (A) to s(A). And on that decisive site you manage to excert a
degree of control, of, say over this demand/expression, beyond your conscious control. But there
are many instances where this is not the case. If there is a cut, a lapsus, an interference, then that
means that the signigier from S(A), in the second register, has been able to
(my comment: interesting to see the sequence of signifiers that always are successful at
disrupting. The sequence. The latter crucial for analysis under transference. As in the case of the
ruling ideology, and victims. But also in the case of the cure)
Impose itself to the signifier from the lower register that is to be found s(A). Like if you are with
your ex, and it is possible to hang out with them, and you no longer say “darling” to, the latter
expression to your new girl, or, boy, and during the conversation you drop “Hey, darling” you have
f-ed up. You will say something like “Ohh, no that was not addressed to you”. Clearly what has
taken place is a metaphorical substitution. The message independent of my intesion heads
towards the s(A), and proceeds to substitute the message I intended to say. We begin with a
wanting to say, and end up with a split of “what was actually said”.
27;40min One may ask “what is it that the line D to S figures in its synchronic movement from D to
S. We can see that this synchronic point (A) coincides with s(A). This refers to the history of
language. The personal history, but in the conscious register. The collective history, but in the
conscious register. That is to say when language is in motion it will enter, or, the logic of its motion
will generate a temporal terrain, or, a history. The speed of thought, and time dilation would be
interesting things to look at (my comment). We have the personal, and collective history of
language then at both levels: conscious, and unconscious registers.
28:45min We may see its orbital movement and use a precipitation metaphor. The second register
overdetermines, or, mosoons its way to the conscious register in the set of lapsuses etc. But these
sets of elements will also evaporate once they attain linguistic (matter) in solid form.
I(A) where the gamma is on the graph, is where resides our illusory (when one may say that one´s
thoughts regarding one´s capacity to relate, and control language aka “the psyche” have turned
illusory) sense of control over language. Its negative geometrical dimension punctuated by a
particular sense of satisfaction: in both instance when we do control what we say, imaginary
satisfaction, and when we imagine that we do. You can say the second register also is imaginarily
satisfied when it disrupts when you attempted to say what you wanted to say.
That punctuation point of organizing into a whole what you wanted to say, as soon as it takes
place, already is a point where, one may say, evaporation takes place. For example. Let us say we
are having sex, consentual, with someone we like, and as you go about it the thought, and image
of someone else appears, and you climax anyway. You may have a great time of the experience,
but there is a moment of identification with the disruption of your enabling fantasy that leads to a
degree of worry, and anxiety. There is a degree of worrying doubt, a Che Voiu, at this moment of
disruption
Ok, but what happens when the issue is more problematic, and the evaporation, going towards A
◊ D, and S(A) leads to a phobia? Phobia counts as a type of evaporation. Phobia to some object like
vulnerable victims.. Psychosis is another mode of evaoporation, It implies that you have ruptured
with the delta, or, the I(A). The lady of which we were speaking yesterday that could not stop from
speaking: quite the degree of evaporation she was having.
In analysis, once transference sets in, and one gives total, and full permission for the imagos to
manifest themselves (see audio lectures, and translations of Agressivity In Psychoanalysis) one
does all this to ask the other: What do you want? The opening for a particular decision at the
ethical level. Those are the type of generativity of signifiers “evaporation”. The type of evaporation
that stems out of a crisis situated at the s(A) level. Everytime there is a crisis between s(A) and the
I(A) (control over language) in that moment you will get “evaporation” to put it in that way.
33:47min Refers back to his explanation of the signifier in “Lacan For Everyone”. How all of Lacan
may be explained from an examination of the symbol. You may easily begin by asking yourself
“Why is the signifier above the bar isolated?” whenever there is, or, we encounter sense either as
extentional semantics, or, as intentional semantics, If it is the case that we have sign, bedeutung,
then it is the signifier that preceeds any of the articulations that will lead to its intelligible
expression after: subject + verb + adverb. That is the condition for language to exist. The signifier
in self-reflexive relation to itself is the condition for language as such.
Interesting thing: The disruption of the unconscious dream by the conscious register. The other
way around every time we go to bed at night. The return of the repressed as the uncanny. In
Lacan, or, a lacanian key it refers to the retun of the signifier in both dimension. In the sense not
only a verbal/acoustic utterance, or, mark. It could also be an image, or, visual mark.
Some girl asks a question, but she is worried that it may be a dumb question, or, a question that
only displays her degree of being ignorant, or, a fool. And he tells her to go ahead that it is not a
problem since those things that come out from us as “fooleries” are the fault of the signifier.
She asks if the unconscious may be fixed. I am guessing by oneself. He brings about the case of the
woman that would not keep quiet. This demand insisted against her will to the point of not
sleeping aka the point of jouissance. She was taken to a psychiatric hospital where drugs, and
electro-shock were administered. Did nothing. Escaped had her kid baptized, and this resoved the
unconscious demand. She never had to go to an analyst. This proves that people can act in an
intuitive way to certain problems in a way that has been called in psychological, and analytical
circles as acting out. A situation may be so unbearable that you are pushed to do something, and
that thing you did makes the symptom go away.
The purpose of analysis is getting the parient to, once under transference, and free association, to
be able to reveal to the analyst to figure out what are the motives belonging to that unconscious
signifier that leads to a metaphorical substitution of itself for the symptom of which you are
suffering. So, the symptom that may be visible is the “recgonizible” metaphor of the unconscious
signifier. The question becomes how to figure what were the steps taken, or, that it takes over,
and over in analysis to metaphorize itself in that way.
If there is a symptom then there is a cause. And the capacity to isolate the cause is the beginning
of whatever possible cure.
“El inconciente es una cadena de significantes que en algun sitio insiste y se repite” “The
unconscious is a signifying chain that insists, and repeats itself in some place”. For example dreams
that repeat themselves. It could be the case of a repeating dream, or, the phobia. My comment:
the way the symptom writesitself: as a dream, phobia, “x” set of lapsuses during analysis, ellipsis,
and neoplasm in dreams etc.
50:24min Freud teaches us that the dream may combust into more potent ways the deeper is the
kind of sleep you are having. The reasons is that the barriers of consciousness, pre-consciousness
are less present, they are more relaxed, and as a consequence of this the potency of the dream
has intensified. My comment: relate to psychosis, and n.o.f.
What we mean by more potent is that the unconscious, written in a particular way, manifests itself
in a more radical form. There are states of consciousness where the grammar of dream-logic
begins to manifest itself, but you awaken from it rather quickly. The dream, or, the insertion of
your awareness in it may be more easily disrupted.
Sleepwalking is a phenomena that helps us grasp that what we call symptom refers itself as much
to linguistic expression as much as what you do. What thoughts find themselves capable of
objectifying themselves in the world. In the case of a person that sleep-walks you have a person
that is not only producing linguistic expressions, but is also passing onto the act in an unconscious
manner. Sleepwalking as an observable phenomena does reveal a set of things the person does in
the world according to the steps dictated by the logic of the dream, Example the sublime object
around which all incestual hallucinatory groups organize themselves: blacks, Hispanics, muslims,
jews, women as exploited working class. What makes “the woman” woman in this instance is that
she is the object of incestual exploitative violence. The same for the others. It is not some special
ethnic quality hallucinate by the group that experiences cultural castration, and attempts to
resolve the absence of cultural identity via the means of undoing the possibility of residing in
culture aka incestual exploitative violence: torture, and genocide.
53: 47min Next Section.

From the moment one of the figuring signs, one of those imoji, or, avatars above the bathroom
door function as things that allow one to discern where one may go in that image becomes a
signifgier although it may be an image, or, an iconic image. And this means that the signifier has
established a relation of identiy with the mark/image, or, ondulating lines that form the iconic
image.
There is a moment where Lacan says in the Seminar of unconscious formations that the signifier is
a mark
print [noun] a mark made by pressure

trace [noun] a mark or sign left by something
The signifier is a huella (print) but as a marca (mark). But, for example, my footprint is a specific
form of mark. The particular, or, the universal category Mark. It is the remainder pressed upon
something left by a particular forces of attraction and repulsion.
Since we are too close to our own language we may see it easier if we use another alphabet. Let us
use Δ which is the letter “delta”. If we look at it at first, or, at this one: ϕ. They look like marks
made by a punzon: think of an unfinished slightly thicker than usual sword. This conic instrument
you hammer letters into rocks with. Or what they use for tattoos nowadays.
In this sense the notion of mark, or, print allows for a wider degree of abstraction when it comes
to analyze this linguistic entity of the signifier.
56:00min
Returning back to the graph above he poses the question as to why we have a signifier S(A) on the
left hand side of the second section of the graph. And it is in unconscious position and isolated.
S
Perhaps we could think of the bar how it is separated by the bar from rigid modalities of
s
signification.
He wants to concentrate on the left hand side of the graph. And he first wants to mention how
S(A) in the second register and s(A) reproduce the Lacanian algorithmic sign of
S
s
The point of situating the signifier lodged in the unconscious position, and isolated is to say that it
lacks meaning. It is a zero sig as it were. It will be a “will have been” sig. The unconscious is here
understood as being a collection of signifiers that are empty. The latter elements in that modality
is what gives shape to the unconscious. That is to say, in such a state, they are not serving the
function of signification. Not until they reach the s(A), in the message, of a particular text. It is in
s(A) where signification takes place where a signifier combines with other signifiers to generate
signification as it can be seen in a message.
If we have said that the signifier is to be found in the upper register, that the unconscious is in the
upper register, and that unconscious overdetermines the conscious register, that is to say, to use a
metaphor, it rains upon it, what overdetermines our conscious speech, awareness, is an empty sig
it is to say that what governs us is a mode of madness. My comment: A “will have been” site, a site
that is yet to signified. Empty as it were. What over-determies us is an absolute/pure randomness.
A kind of self-reflexive/relating zero absolute contradiction. A sort of “1” looping on itself as a
prime number. Elaborations of this variety may also be found in Kant´s ethics. Hegel´s critique of
that site “being too empty” of having a certain undetermined, unspecified nature. Perhaps Kants
own definition of the ego (non Lacanian terms) as that thing which cannot, itself, become an
object of experience, but organizes all the words, and concepts for us to have emotional as well as
other experiences.
What this graph shows is that a demand can sustain itself against our will. That is to say messages
produced that in no way involve your conscious intentions, or, address your conscious needs. And
we may also venture to say that the very same experience of controlling what we say can also be
attributed to the overdetermination of this empty sig that takes us, through a random path, to
that very same thing that we think we are consciously controlling. This is a kind of unnerving point
for a lot of people. A sort of excessive fact about humans. Think of Nazism, or, genocide. The
character of the ungroundedness of the exploitative violence. Systematic year after year.
Eichmann´s defense “he is following the will of the Other” is the monstrousity of the Kantian law.
My comment: this is false. You cannot treat as means to an end in Kant. Those are one of the
axioms. That is why Lacan calls Sade, if taken the logic of his fantasy seriously, “bad humor” at
best. He presents the example, very familiar, that you cannot lie under any circumstances. So that
if the Gestapo, or, another political police is looking for the oppressed to-be-treated-as-an-object
of absolute exploitation then it is your duty to serve the Nazi, because you cannot lie. The latter is
a University perpetuated falsehood. By PhD´s in philosophy. Yeah, the monstruosity is on the side
of those advocating this very same interpretation. It is problematic to say the least given how
much effort, almost onto death, Kant places on your duty not to treat people as means to an end.
My comment to support his argument. “There is a will that sustains itself, a demand, beyond our
conscious intentions.” In order to elaborate a maxim that may enable the beginning of the analysis
of people turning themselves into social Kamikazes. So, how is to account, and explain when the
maladaptiveness of humans reaches such a degree that they become free in the absence of
autonomy. The crucial context is the reorganization of social relations towards further exploitative
abstraction, as criticized by Marx in the manifesto, once the Brunning government finds itself in
the need of doing away with the obstacles of the rights of the Weimar republic social relations
may be militarized. There is only one will to which you obey, plenty of enabling efficient fantasies
in the history of pogroms by the Church, and you turn people into dead labor, or, machinery with
the help of a Gobbelian machine. I have not read it, but Tottem, and Taboo, and The psychology
of masses by Freud would also be relevant.
The issue with Nazis is that they also go through a process of military rewards, and night of the
long knives, set of operations to make sure you have people that will carry out what they want to
be done. They are not interested in friction. Hence they intense effort behind the militarization of
social relations, and constantly reconstituting them over, and over again. Perhaps following
updated versions of Machiavelly´s axioms, and other things.
The Kantian doctrine, its true “horror” for the exploiter, is its unconditional demand that Nazis
crimes are to be acted on as crimes against humanity therefore not universalizable. That is the
Kantian legacy. That when it comes down to it we are all going down with the victim in defending
those lifes. Nothing else is acceptable. It overrides every other possible command internationally.
We go back to the case of a person suffering, and the split they display. Let us take OCD. There is a
demand, that will take the person to destroy their hands, regardless of the fact they do not need
to wash their hands. Where there is a demand, there is a message, and where this message finds
itself we observe a set of actions taking place. The message as metaphor of the signifier
objectifying itself against the conscious needs, and intentions of the person. You can reach out to
this person, and tell them “You do not need to they are clean” The expression is clear, but the
demand will push them against their intentions.
1:09:42min Critique to the idea of a collective unconscious. The problem with it is that it ignores
the personal history of each person. The specificity of the singularity of the person´s position with
regards to the unconscious identification made with the archetype they hold in common with the
rest of people. For example, we all have had the dream of flying, but within a network of
complexes (See Roudinesco in my audiomack acct. Perhaps “Roudinesco on Imagos”) this dream
means something very specific to you. Remember the issue with telling the OCD person “No, you
are fine. I have checked, and they are clean”. It will be irrelevant to the singular want to which he,
or, she are identified with this symptom. The point of shareabllity ceases. The truth is no longer
operative. Hence the capacity of dream logic of sustaining itself.
1:10:07min
Going back to the signifier isolated in the upper register. Why so. If we move towards the s(A)
S S ( A)
(remember the s )
and s (A ) once we situate ourselves in the message we can clearly count
with the signifier: that much is clear. Reading the graph in an adequate manner we could say that
on the left side we have, on the upper register, a Signifier, and on s(A) we have a signifier, and a
signified. In order to speak we require the syntagma: the logic of motion, effective, of accuratedly
placing each element after the other. Ex: subject + verb + adjective. X+Y+Q. Any noun, any number
etc.
syn·tagm
/ˈsinˌtam/
noun
noun: syntagma
1. a linguistic unit consisting of a set of linguistic forms (phonemes, words, or phrases)

that are in a sequential relationship to one another.
When one speaks one must submit, without any alternative, non-negociably, to the phonic
signifier (The law as it were. One of its manifestations. The crucial one for all other historical
forms), to the signifying sound, or, sound in order to reach you at the other end.
So, even though s(A) appears where it does, and it is read “signified of the other”, what we must
understand is that it is the signification as effect. An output of a broader category we will call
“signification”. A particular manifestation. And it is the effect produced by a specific way of
punctuating. Depending on the place of punctuation you will generate different signifieds.
1:12:34min Moving onto S(A). The signifier of the Other. What is it represented as being empty.?
Why is it that the signifier in unconscious position does not present itself to us, submitted under
the mentioned law, signifying.
1:14:31min. How common are dreams that do not make sense? That do not enter signification as
it were? Where the degree of non-identity between you, and your dream is substantive? He had a
dream of a naked aunt of his sat on a horse with a wild-west ondulating mustage, and she was
carrying a sword. Recommends “The Interpretation of Dreams” by Freud given that dreams are
one of the most clearest manifestations of the unconscious.
One could say of dreams that they have a meaning, but not that they signify: as shown in the
degree of non-identity with it. It may come to have a meaning as long as one connects it to the
personal history of the patient. We have dreams that could be nightmares, or, they could be of the
kind that they leave you saying “I wish I had not woken up” etc.
There are dimensions to the dream. You have a discursive component: what is said, and by what
characters. And there is the mural, or, context that is its visual signifying environment. The latter is
to be connected to modalities of identification that are foundational. Identifications that are of a
primordial, and shaping variety. Perhaps related to our fundamental fantasy.
My comment: There is this picture of this girl, and the egoic confidence, zeitgeistish, she wants to
betray in her smile signifies, but what is carrying out does not. It is as if whenever offered a chance
to get out of a particular circuitry of barreness and limitation she does not. Its signification is
suicidal of human faculties yet she displays an egoic pride that situates her in a moment of
unconscious illusory-wholeness. It was sent to me.
Yes. The issue of seduction and into which it will retroactivze itself under the current game
theoreticalized zeitgeist.
Notice there is nothing wrong with the way she sculpts her feature. There are finely served to the
eyes. They do deliver the pleasure intended.Notice she has a sort of audience, and she writes a
captivating ideal. Its instrumentalizing aim is to convince you of your own potency. To select
whether or not to verify something for you. As in Dany De La Cruz, and her students example. The
circulation of the phallus in master-slave lacanian dialectics.
The dream may be understood as lacking sense, but it remains comprehensible in a sense. Just
because something lacks sense it does not mean that it may not attain the status of being
comprehensible. What we are saying is that, a-priori, it lacks sense. Let us see why.
CONTINUE 1:1845MIN BEGIN HERE

We are going to connect the idea of absence of signification, but containing features that makes it
comprehensible.
The innagural moment of the unconscious is when the kid is forced to, and accept the law that
prohibits incest. And he is forced to renounced the mOther as the libidinal object. The mOther
that will validate the fantasy that he can exhaust her desire absolutely (remember the couple, sex,
and porn. Not being able to extinguish in the most absolute of manners desire. It would be acting
on the madness they are in fact God)
In fact the incest taboo has an ontological value. If the person does not submit to it then they
would not be able to enter into a set of social relations we know as social intercourse. So, the
grounding of the unconscious favors the emergence of the social subject. You would surrender all
autonomy. Repression is the condition sinequanon for the social subject to appear. So, we are not
to take the appearance of the unconscious lightly.
Unary trait
From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
According to Jacques Lacan, the unary trait is the elementary form of the signifier as pure
difference that supports symbolic identification.
In the second of the three forms of identification described by Freud, the subject identifies
regressively with a love object or rival by adopting a "single trait" of the other person
(einziger Zug) (1921c, p. 107). Dora's cough, for example, was an imitation of her father's.
Lacan recognized this single trait as a signifier. Or more precisely, insofar as this signifier
is isolated and is not part of a chain of signifiers, it is first a sign or an "insignia of the
Other" (cf. Lacan, 1957-58, p. 304; 2002, p. 253). This insignia of the Other constitutes the
nucleus of the ego-ideal.
In his seminar on Identification (1961-62), Lacan used Saussure's linguistics, to compare

the einziger Zug with the signifier as a distinct element. Thus he translated it as "unary
trait" to emphasize its mathematical sense, comparing it with a binary number.
Ferdinand de Saussure defined the signifier negatively. It is not the same, but is different
from the other signifiers in a given structure. This implies that a signifier is also different
from itself. This pure difference characterizes the unary trait. As an example of the first
primitive indication of the existence of the signifier, Lacan referred to a prehistoric hunter
carving notches into a piece of bone. One notch signifies each kill, with no reference to the
different types of prey or the particular events of each hunt. Each animal killed counts as
one, and that is the only aspect of the hunt marked by the trait.
Of course, the traits in a series need not resemble each other. They do not need to be
identical in order to be the same. In fact, the contrary is true. Because no simple trait is
recognizable as a thing itself, once it becomes part of a series you cannot tell which was the
first mark.
When the thing is erased, the unary trait remains as symbolic of its absence. Thus the trait
transforms the absent thing into an object of desire. A second mark, indistinguishable from
the first, creates a hole in which this object is lost. Thus the unary trait merges with the
phallic mark and the castration threat, insofar as it forever prohibits access to the incestuous
Thing. The existence of the subject of the enunciation is suspended by the trait that names
it, but this subject immediately disappears in the trait that fixes it, such that the subject only
exists between two traits.
To formalize the unary trait, Lacan relied on the topology of the torus, insofar as the unary
trait is the mark of a double loss, the loss of an object, which corresponds to the central hole
of the torus, and the absence of the subject of the unconscious, which is the uncounted turn
of the repeated demand. A single cut that makes a Möbius strip, where the two surfaces are
one, corresponds to the structure of the unary trait, identical neither to itself nor to the
structure of the subject.
See Also
When we move from the position of the Unary trait, alienated in it, to the adquisition of language,
or, binary signifier (in the operation known as separation I am guessing)
If we realize that the unconscious is constructed in the transformational path from unary signifier
S
into the binary signifier: when language is adquired
s
When signification, and the message may be produced. It is during this period where the
dimension of the voice, or, the phonetic dimension: N.O.F Roberto Rabinovich and nof lectures is
not fully operative. So, you get kids signifying everything with “tata”. It is fully operative only when
the kid is able to say “mom” and “dad”. It is the phase during which, thanks to the entrance of the
binary signifier, that he can differentiate one person from another. We were also saying that the
existence of the unconscious is not possible unless there was a minimum of symbolization of the
specter of the real. If this is not the case then we would not be in a position to speak about
repression.
Let us take the example of the kid that has not yet gone through the weening process. He, or, she
are not aware that this is precisely the object that they must renounce, and they do not know so,
because the structure of symbolization that would enable enough linguistic-reflexivity to register
this fact is absent. In “Civilization and Its Discontents” Freud talks about the discontent in culture
given repression, but what people forget is the other side of that formula. Namely that it is
repression the one that is responsible for bringing forth the social subject. Were it not for this we
would not be able to step out of our homes, and interact with other people, because we could not
interact with other people through the law of exchange.
Returning to the unconscious. If we go back to the moment when we try to detect the moment of
the path that is follow from the Unary signifier to the binary signifier, the splatung, the bar
separating the signifier to the signified, the path that, once traversed, allows for the emergence of
the symbolic. In other words positioning ourselves at the moment where there is a minimum of
symbolization so that the real may stop from being real, and it may be transformed in “reality”. It
is at this point that we may be able to understand that what is repressed is a signifier that does
not have a signified. It is an empty signifier, because in the transformative logic that moves from
the unary to the binary signifier, in this traversed path there cannot be, there cannot exist, strictly
for logical reasons as it were, a codified, or, hyper-codified link, a bond, a connection, between the
signifier, and the signified.
Even in the first moments of the formation of the binary signifier the terms implicit in it have yet
to estalblish a set of kinda like arithmetical laws that would organize them into clearly connected,
related, but differentiated terms of a system of signification: like a dictionary. We may use a
dictionary as an already organized web of well defined relations between signifiers, and signifies. It
presupposes a set of relations that would hold together a set of significations, as an output, that
we know as “the dictionary”.
1:26:11min This is the fundamental thesis of what I trying to convey. What we have explained
above is that the unconscious consists of signifiers without sense, or, signification. The
unconscious insofar, to the extent that, it is formed by empty signifiers, to the extent that it is an
empty signifier, blocks, rejects during the process of its formation, as part of itself, then entrance
of sense. What we understand as the signified does not enter.
A girl asks a question.
Answer: Well, think of it this way that something may be perceived by the senses, and
furthermore, not only perceived, but registered, recognized, it could be the case that you may
perceive something that you do not recognize: unfamiliar to you. This implies you have a well
organized, and adequate symbolic structure that has no problems in functioning so that you may
perceive, and recognized that which you are seeing, or, being exposed to.
What I am saying is that if the formation of the unconscious takes place during a very early period
in one´s life. A moment of their lives where the kid experiences, and lives-out the moment of
repression of what we are calling “instincts (incestual) towards the mother” then what would
count as the (least) minimal comprehension of this prohibition presupposes the employment of a
language that is not whole onto itself. A language that does not exhaust everything that can be
said. That there is no God language as it were. There is no Other to the Other. And henceforth it is
a language that is not connected to sense making. It is relating to itself in its own limitation as it
were hence excluding the generativity of meaning.
That is to say the minimum of symbolization, this essential linguistic-computational operation,

implies that the unconscious begins to construct itself, configure itself, taking as its point of
departure this essential minimum of symbolization. This triggers a modality of operations of
exclusions, or, blockade of entrance of signification. The unconscious is not a tightly organized
whole. It is made up of elements, but it is not whole onto itself.
This is the reason why when Freud detects the ghost/fantasy in “a child is being beaten” it is
somewhat strange that the grammatical engine behind that entire story is “A child is being
beaten”. The latter is the text in which Freud begins to talk about drive. In this sense we will keep
to both thesis: 1) The unconscious is made up of empty signifiers means that in its constitution as
an object, or, entity that manifests itself in analysis, sense, intelligibility, is not a foundation upon
which it is constructed. This does not imply that it lacks a logic of its own, or, laws of motion (my
comment: perhaps metaphor, and metonymy). The latter is the one that in the analytical setting
one is able to discover.
1:30:45min Question: not at all audible.

Yes, if you notice, when the movement known as structuralism attempted to formalize the level of
meaning, signification, or the semantic level, they were only able to do so when they exposed to
formalization the very same epistemological means of phonetical formalization.
That is to say, structural semantics, had to begin its work by recognizing that the semantic fields
are organized through a logic of binary opposition of terms to each other. The latter relations
being the foundational relation. For example, I know what a boy is, because I can individuate him
vis-a-vi its own negative, that is to say, the girl. Without this I am unable to define what a boy is.
What I must do is, what I see myself forced in doing, is that I have to bring forth some masculine
trait “x” that is defined by its capacity to oppose itself to the feminine trait: that is may
accomplished this operation between terms.
Question: What about the concept of “star”?
Answer: Well, we may take a concept like star, and it is not just that one can introduce it into a
semantic field, conceive of it in opposition to other terms, is that it inevitably (as such?) it enters, it
has to enter, a semantic field (defined by rules of relation to define itself as a term) and that
means: the star, the sun (terms that are similar, but differentiated in terms of itself) , planets, the
galaxy (notice how a set is builing up to the macro entity. These are sets that are not members of
themselves. I take that from Hofstadters Godel, Escher, and Bach) you understand the term “star”,
within it as a meta-unit I am guessing, in opposition to “light” to “radiation” to the absence of the
star itself. It is not possible to say that something has a meaning unless one is contrasting it with
that which they are not.
There is a point in Saussere´s course of General Linguisitics where he says “The sign is a value”.
What is one to understand of this? That in the system of language the only thing one is to find are
differences (as an operative principle. As the “not” operator in logic. A very special operator). It
means that term is able to adquire an identity taking as a point of departure negative values, that
is to say, taking as a point of departure that which is not. A term, let us say a mark such as this: Ө
completely isolated of everything else does not mean anything.
My comment: Could we say its value = 0, or, close to noumena non-intelligibility. As x----0.
For example, the most minimal marks, + and -. We cannot conceived positive without the
negative. If you proceed to abstract until you reach the most isolated of possible terms you will
reach what Derrida terms “the place of Identity and difference”. The term identity cannot be
conceived without difference.
This is the thesis that we are upholding: to achive, a concrete, effect of sense, to be able to speak
of it, we require binaries, or, binarism. When you perceive something new that was not amongst
the things you did not know what you do is to make it enter into your system of signification, and
once there it will enter into a relation of opposition with the rest of the elements you already
knew.
The minimum of symbolization that is carried out at the moment of the prohibition (negative
operator in formal logic: see Carnedes.org at youtube) of incest is yet to reach the symbolic
position of binarism.
My comment: one begins with a unary trait, and then it must relate to itself negatively: encounter
the limit within itself as it were. After that vanishing mediator, or, third logical self-relating
recursive movement one almost reaches the point of binarism.
Binarism is reached in the third temporal phase of Oedipus. When the entrance into the symbolic
has been accomplished. You have totally immersed in it. Repression has taken place.
Begin 1:35:29min
Kant Avec Sade: Analysis of Low-Life.
A guiding pattern: “There is not a way in which they do not interact with the other (public) that is
A◊$
not wrong to the point of ungrounded (language: relation to it) violence. “
lim −−→ Stupid
Where stupid is to be understood as the extent to which the violence does away with even a
framing aim to produce the wrong object upon which to deploy it. Once it approximates this point
suffient enough it returns to violence with a substantively bad aim. It must be substantively bad
since it must be ungrounded “to be free”. Always with the understanding that jouissance is
prohibited to those that speak as scuch.
Other ways of measuring this are the way they “live” their “net-worth” and how it is later used to
finance policy against the people that make them reach, because as Lenny, Trent, James Maynard
Keenes, and Al Jourgessen agree “we deserve it”. See “The Fix” documentary intro in youtube.
They want to be totally ungrounded in deploying their incestual violence, proceed to construct the
threat, and move renletlessly to go after it. And this will repeat itself 24/7 in order “to test their
strength, and will” A will that belongs to the other which they serve since they only find freedom
in the absence of autonomy. The latter can be easily empirically testable.
 8h
gonzogil123
Unafraid, defiant, satisfied in snuff, and white people are safe with you: The latter your master sig.
And a request for existential anxiety. Knowing what distabilizes you. No.
34m
gonzogil123
All those minus phi plus " I am just pretending" @ serial killer structure.
27m
gonzogil123
You want someone to swerve you in swerve city.
26m
gonzogil123
Gaping too much: to be seen drive, and minus phi blasted with "white people at safe with me. I am
not from here. I am not from here" * n.
28m
gonzogil123
That is a lot of effort to eat yourself out: running out of real reasons for which to smile aka
constantly connecting to all the wrong standards. Aim at shit = up to everyone else. You have
given every reason.
32m
gonzogil123
To relax not eat. Although yeah even grammarly could not "rescue you". To rescue you indicating
where to defend oneself.
31m
gonzogil123
All the time in the world: you are eternal. So, yes. Plenty of it.
One speaks of unary, and binary signifier since they correspond to the different phases of the
formation of the subject. The unary means that there exists a minimum of symbolization, but
without a contrast. This situation does not last long as he pointed out with the Derridean dialectics
comment. It is a phase. A self-relating negativity motion will set in until non-identity with itself in
difference takes place.It may seem strange, but it is noticeable in the experience undergone by the
child of using a single word to designate every single individuated, and different from each other
thing in the world. It is here that you can detect what I refer to when binarism is absent.
Comment: The kid may call “dad” or use that word to address everything, but the kid understand
they are not the same thing.
Asansi: But how do you know that about the kid? When the kid uses “dad” for every single thing
what one can tell, in the phases of the structuring of the subject, or (inclusive) how the kid is
developing, is that the capacity to differentiate between objects, or, things is not clear to him.
Otherwise what is the function that the unary signifier lends to the kid. The unary signifier refers
to that moment when the acquisition of language begins.It does not imply an full,complete, entry
into language. Binarism has not set in. It is important to point out that even within binarism the
capacity to differentiate it produced from, or, thanks to the signifier not the signified. We would
find ourselves with the precedence of the signifier, or, kinda of before it, mark, before the
computational operations present in syntax, or, grammar may take place.
This primordial significance of the signifier, in unconscious position, alienated in it (similar to

unconscious identification with a fantasy formation) does not have sense. It is empty of sense.
Signifying image, or, empty image, word, and action: to act.
That is why it is represented as S(A) in the upper part of the graph. We may say there are effects of
sense, of meaning, but the siginifier cannot be reduced to the signified. There is a generative
antagonistic difference. Similar, perhaps, to universal, and particular. If you noticed even when it
comes to represent the algorithm for the Lacanian sign he still refuses to combine signifier, and
signified in an identity
S
s
What we notice is the generative-antagonistic difference as the deadlock, initial starting point.If
the signifier is position as primary then it means that it is isolated from the signifier. That is why
we say that what governs in the unconscious is the signifier. What helps us demonstrate this is the
case that we have observed many times in every day life as well as the clinic. If someone is capable
of forming a link, a bond, between the signifiers [“buffalo horns are small”] α and [“being
unfaithful”]β (interesting example given the ideological component. It also incorporates a fantasy
into which the perpetrator must alienate) is because this can take place, because there is a
signifying operation (operacion significante) that accomplishes the isomorphic metaphorical
relation so that the syntagma β signifies, particularizes itself in α. He might mean the opposite
the signifying motion could might go either way. That bonding connection between signifiers the
logic that manages to bring forth an effect of meaning is a very specific way of combining signifiers
to brings forth an abhorrent moment of signification. It also yields a type of shock, and
reconfiguration of identities etc. And recognized by all including those that were having the
conversation.
But as soon as the signifier is isolated in the unconscious (to such a degree?) it makes no sense to
talk about signifiers already combined with a particular signified. The latter revealed perhaps in
the way dreams are written, or, are always written. If there was such a sign it would have to be
empty of sense, and as an output of the operations that govern the signifier, or, are typical of the
signifier.
1:40:13min Comment from student: That may be so, but when we first think we think with the
signifier, and signified, and only later does one arrive at the signifier. When I think I first have to
think about what I want to say, and then I look for the words that may best suit them.
But what you do before is think of the signified as an effect of the signifier. The logic of its
constitution has to follow those steps (letters, and marks preceeding signification). Yes, what you
speak of t is the Sausserian model. This is the classical schema. I have a sense, a meaning, and with
it a particular affect (affect-sense identity), and only later do I proceed to combine it with a
signifier which is the one that appears in the message as it were. This brings us forth a degree of
relief, of consolation. He says this because of the implicit notion of control over language, and the
unity in identity, unfragmented of both signifier, and signified. Our humanity resides in this.
Human language being a very defining feature. This idea that we carry a substantive knowledge of
the signifier, control it to the extent I imagine, outside questioning it, and then since I control it to
the extent I imagine then I deliver it.
1:41:16min Let us take the example. When you tell someone “No” (sign with a very strong affect)
this effect does not limit itself to that signifier. You can say “No” in a number of different ways.
The person that says “No” remains satisfied with what he has said. The degree of clarity he has
achieved. The affect and syllable collide in an identity. Other times you may simply sigh, or, move
your face in signifying gestures etc. Sometimes it means “no” literally, and it is better to interpret
it in that way. But to say that “No” is unmodifiably connected to a feeling, or, affect precisely
ignores that that which was a-priori is that set of rules that allows to differentiate between “Yes”
and “No”.
It is a complex issue that does merit careful investigative attention even though in our everyday
life we confirm the fact of our degree of ease, and familiarity with language. But doing away with
some kind of unwelcomed anxiety via consoloation is not such a bad deal. I would not disagree
with you on that.
Question: It is somewhat difficult for me to understand that the Signifier is empty at first. Isolated
in the unconscious, and it is only later when combined with the message that it acquires sense
I understand that it may not be understood I am suspicious that it may be a form of resistance as it
were (saying it playfully to the student) it is not that it is beyond the reach of understanding. It is
more like one is not so easily inclined to wanting to understand it in this way.
Jokes aside. Ok, we have two ways to reach, enter, that signified of the other. This first, and most
simple way is the synchronic path. If we begin with the Lacanian algorithm and notice that Lacan
represents the signifier on the place of the numerator as it were, and the signified as the output,
or, effect. And the signifier is isolated in the representation of the sign
S
s
Is done so, because it preceeds its output. It is the axiomatic thing. It occupies the first position in
the process that will lead to the output we know as: meaning. If we know that the unconscious
preceeds consciousness (before birth, after, before adquiring language, and right before we do. As
well as right after) then it follows that the signifier occupies an unconscious position.
My comment: Another way of looking at it is that we have to study language even though we can
use it, and are familiar with it. There are questions about it whose answers do not deliver
themselves to us just because we are familiar with it, or, our anatomy, or, every other organ etc.
The same with counting, and using numbers.
This is a kind of syllogism we are sort of using. The first option I am presenting is the most
comfortable, and accessible explanation as it were. So, we begin with the principle: The signifier is
isolated, and different from its output, but manages to generate meaning. And I know that in this
situation we find ourselves in of being in a classroom I try to explain things in such a way so that
they may have meaning, and people may understand me I can notice that in the register of “the
message” I can clearly see a signifier, and a signified.
1:45:16min
We may call the second explanation one may offer a “genetic explanation”. That is to say if the
unconscious grounds itself, emerges, appears in what we know as “the second temporal phase of
Oedipus”. Just to be clear Lacan says “There is no such thing as a pre-Oedipal moment”. This is a
thesis through which Lacan rectifies Freud´s theory. This counts as a critique, because Freud insists
in talking about a pre-Oedipal phase. This phase is characterized by a type of sexuality, like, oral
sexuality, followed by anal sexuality, and ending with genital sexuality.
Lacan answers “No, what we really have are 3 temporal phases of Oedipus”. The first moment of
Oedipus can be see in the relation of the kid with the mother. In this phase it is the mother the
one that has the phallus. I have yet to introduce this term mostly for reasons of the economy of
terms I am using to get the points across.
The phallus means: control (over the relation), and power and “the one with a penis” (fantasized
as such: My own fantasy “I can accept that my dad is my dad, but it is clearly the case that it was
mom that brought us into the world. What is he going on about?” aka dad) My guess this is the
way kids begin to differentiate objects in the world. Out of their own cognitive/linguistic limits
they posit answers with which to relate, and identify in order to have a sense, an identity, of who
they are, and navigate social relations etc.
At this moment oral, and anal sexuality are connected to the mother (organized around the
relation, and interaction with her)
BEGIN WITH 1:47:01MIN
Syntagma (linguistics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
In linguistics, a syntagma is an elementary constituent segment within a text. Such a

segment can be a phoneme, a word, a grammatical phrase, a sentence, or an event within a
larger narrative structure, depending on the level of analysis. Syntagmatic analysis involves
the study of relationships (rules of combination) among syntagmas.
At the lexical level, syntagmatic structure in a language is the combination of words

according to the rules of syntax for that language. For example, English uses determiner +
adjective + noun, e.g. the big house. Another language might use determiner + noun +
adjective (Spanish la casa grande) and therefore have a different syntagmatic structure.
At a higher level, narrative structures feature a realistic temporal flow guided by tension
and relaxation; thus, for example, events or rhetorical figures may be treated as syntagmas
of epic structures.
Syntagmatic structure is often contrasted with paradigmatic structure. In semiotics,

"syntagmatic analysis" is analysis of syntax or surface structure (syntagmatic structure),
rather than paradigms as in paradigmatic analysis. Analysis is often achieved through
commutation tests.[1]
Begin Here
1:47:01min
In the second temporal phase of Oedipus we have the emergence of the prohibition of incest. The
negation of the continuation of the erotic-affective commerce between the mother, and the child.
And what is the presupposition behind this? It presupposes the enunciation of the father. The
explicit enunciation that it is him the one that holds the phallus. The kid is not the ultimate
libidinal object that commands, and satisfies the mother completely. In other words it is him the
one that holds power (commands libidinal attention of that other that commanded his libidinal
attention, or, upon which the mOther deposited a great deal of libidinal attention)
It is at this sudden introduction of this fourth element into the relation, the one for which he was
not prepared
(the relation with the mOther included 3: child, mOther, and the circulating phallus). That of the
father that demands repression, and renunciation of continuing to identify himself as this object
where the infant lives out the Oedipal trauma. The antagonism arises since he must renounce his
desire for the mother.
At this moment another mode of identification, via the laws of metaphor, and through
substitution take place. The place, within the web of identifications, occupied by the mOther is
substituted for that of the father.
Where I used to situate the mOther that had the phallus I now proceed to situate the father as
having the phallus. This procedure of identification with the agency of repression is the moment of
the gestation of the unconscious. And since we understand that this displays the transition from
the unary to the binary signifier it it obvious that what is positioned as the unconscious signifier
still remains not submitted to the logic of meaning, or, sense.
My comment: It is a sort of base, primary narcissism, it remains unary, but the modes of
identification you go through in order to become a social subject are more as it were. You go
through secondary identification.
It is at this moment where what I call the genetic interpretation may take place. The third
temporal phase of Oedipus is characterized by the awareness that the father is not in 1:1 relation
with the phallus. That is is not all powerful. That this other also lacks. It is also mortal. This is also a
traumatic moment. To find out that the person you identified with, and deposited all your sense of
trust, and safety with is very limited is another deadlock in symbolization the person will have to
deal with. The latter deadlock transforms itself into a neurosis given that you realize that you lack
power, and lose it once the father, and mOther lose it.
It is because of this insistence of Lacan, that of modifying Freud´s theory of the Oedipus, that
accounts as to why
You will see in the graph above the $ instead of the delta. This is so since we cannot isolate a
particular moment at which there is not already active a minimum relation to the signifier To the
phallus etc.. A minimum of splatung. My comment: my guess is that if that is not so the
mammalian human would simply be dead. If there is an extreme non-relation, in terms of
identification with the signifier, then your head would be destroyed somehow.
1:50:52min
Question: But if the signifier, and the signified are separated, difference is what predominates
between both then why do we position the signifier as that which preceeds the signififed.
Well, one begins with the account that the signifier self-relatingly rotates within the real to carve
it, and make, registerable/”familiar”/common-sensical, “reality” appear.The precedence of the
signifier may also be seen in the fact that the mark that allows for a minimal opposition, for
example, Ө, preceeds the very same opposition between signifier, and signified. With the mark, Ө,
one notices a minimal difference between itself, and the place of inscription, itself, and nothing.
My comment: One may also approach it as follows. Let us say that we know what 6 means. And
we also understand that 4 + 2 = 6. 6 is what the operation 4 + 2 signifies. If we take 6, or, 4 +2 since
they are both equal we could do the following experiment. 6 – 4 = 2 – (half of itself) = 1 – (half of
itself) = 0.5 minus itself = 0, or, ______, or not even that line: so instead of a line “_____” we may
further reduce it “………” into “….”, minus 50% of itself “..” over and over until we notice that there
will be nothing, and after nothing a minimal difference with nothing, or, from the nothing position
a minimal difference with itself.
What accounts for meaning, and sense in Lacan, Derrida, Foucault is the existence of a mark inside
a relation of opposition, a structure of opposition, and not the other way around.
My comment: Again one may look at it as a mark as not being enough. Encountering its own limit,
and generating a different mark combining them together into a unit, let us say syllable, or,
minimal syllable, and the latter also encountering its own limit, or, mortality, and having to add
onto itself, or, different marks. Ex: m, then we move the lines against each other, add, or,
substract them until we get another mark: a. Then we combine them “ma”, but this is not enough
so it engages in self-relation: ma+ma = mama, or, mom etc.
1:54:45min.
If we begin with the signified preceeding the signifier what you will find upon examination is that
you will notice you first need a mark to be present to differentiate one thing before the other. If
,while using the synchronic argument, I have pointed out that it is the signifier the one that
overdetermines sense, or, meaning then we agree that it is primordial. It is present from the point
of departure. If it is the case that what overdetermies us is the unconscious then the signifier
cannot be under out absolute, and total control. It is outside of our control to the point of the
pathologies we have explored in everyday life, and in the clinic. Hence the signifier has to be
isolated. There is a level of idependence in the splatung, certain boundaries within which
signification, and human culture takes place, and this distance, alieanation, self-reflexivity and
isolation from our conscious reach is part of the nature of the signifier.
1:55:36min We also have the genetic explanation. The latter is an account of the projection of the
symbolic in the field of the real. The latter needed so that the incest prohibition may take place
where what stands as preceding is the signifying mark that blocks, not an external obstacle as it
were, but in the sign itself contains within its constitution the difference between the signifier, and
signified. Within the articulation of the Lacanian algorithm is already organized so that the Signifier
does not enter in 1:1 with the signified. Very much like the kid cannot enter into 1:1 libidinal
relation with the mother. There has to be certain organizing differences, structuring, organizing,
hierarchical principles that open up space for the possibility of motion within a space as it were.
If the examples we have been offering demonstrate that the signifier over determines the
individual then it is, because the signifier, as a preceding structure before you acquire language,
precedes the individual. It generates effects of meaning. By effects of meaning we are saying: ways
of acting, signifying expressions, pathological, or, non-pathological behaviors. Remember that I
talked about the signifier determines the field of vision. One does agree to the physiological
neurological components of vision. What we talk about is being able to have access to a set of
marks within a system of differentiation that enables the capacity of distinction between the
students I am taking a look at: the male, and female.
If we take someone that suffers from psychosis, that forecloses access to secondary identification,
is perhaps capable of hearing more than I do. He may hear voices that are not there. A surplus of
signifying elements. The alteration in the restrictiveness of the signifying network, or, field has led
to this situation whereby there is less distance, in the sense of greater degree of abstraction,
between the person and a whole range of linguistic expressions that present themselves but are
forever beyond his reach. There is not even a sort of gap: my use of language, and when such
control ends. It is just pure over determination.
The case of psychosis does bring into relief the limits of thinking about language as an instrument
that finds itself under our utter control. In Lacanian theory it is the other way around. You are
determined by the signifier. It needs to exist as an already established network of signification
before you enter in, before you adquire language as we have said. You are the instrument of the
signifier. As in the case of the OCD deman: “Wash your hands if not then”.
We can also take the example of “automatic writing” from the surrealist movement that was
inspired in Freud´s findings. It may be possible to find something true, but unexpected, and
beyond your conscious reach about the way your combinatory linguistic process operate.
Something that is take to be very familiar, and under control in everyday life. You can take Dali´s
paintings like “The persistence of memory”, and you will find people saying “that is an orinic
landscape”. Walter Benjamin pointed out that surrealism was revolutionary, because it opposed
an oniric logic to a binary logic that we find during daytime.
2:03:45min
Kant Avec Sade: Intro as Interlude. Personifications of Zeitgeist:

Amor a la feminidad y Odio a lo femenino. Love of feminity, and
hatred of the feminine.
gonzogil123
Yeah, it is the issue of self-mastery, the power the image promises, misrecognition, and what is the
case. The point is that you could not get away as it were.
1h
gonzogil123
And a lot of people posting will say "I am totally conscious of it, and can even produce the words"
but this very same illusory power over language will display its illusory character once the signifier
governs what they do regardless of the claim to "I am conscious. I control it", or, "I know this is
unconscious because of x, y, z" but why would that very same registration into awareness qualifies
as unconscious?
1h
gonzogil123
Notice that it is as Asansi points out: an unconscious demand asserts its will regardless. The
signifier preceeds, and determines what they do. They will follow the sig as it were.
1h
gonzogil123
To nurture life, and eroticize it etc.
1h
gonzogil123
The absence of faculties as illusory wholeness, or, capacities. The absence of capacities as its
opposite, and why the gap revealed as it were.
1h
gonzogil123
Also notice that for it to be fun it must be violently ungrounded to the point where there is no
reason, and no reason that would bind her (other equivalents etc) since this is so she cannot acct,
or, have a point of reference from which to assess whether, or, not what the sig wanted her to do
is a "win" for her. It cannot be since It is the sig that decides what she will do. And the sig is empty
it does not desire as it were. She has to fantasize "it is pleased with her" she must
anthropomorphisize to this extent. Neither the sig benefits, nor do people at the end, and she
cannot register a win since the passing onto the act requires her not to.
2nd Example
What led you to find a site at which you a were able to isolate an object worthy of being re-ranked
was lost. What was the nature of the "x" object that let you rank it to the point of going down with
it libidinally if it were to disappear?
46m
gonzogil123
Yes, the teddy thing is interpretatively warped by a particular Sadistic structure in the usual
systematic manner. It is not taken seriously. But as an affront. Hence validating, retroactively, the
structure, and with It the fantasy. In this instance they want to feel attractive in that which negates
it aka incestuality/impotence of surveillance capitalism. Teddy resignified as a toy (see Chomsky
Barsamian. Control of the public mind interviews, 96 or so. A green cover. Chomsky with his
mouth sort of open. They talk about Samuel Huntington towards the end, and the Mohawk valley
formula. and others) aka the degree. End 1sr part. To be minimally attractive you have to,
realistically, enter into 2ndary identification. To be, and keep on being, and acting in ways of
relating that are attractive otherwise it is a problematic child at best, or, as Lacan pointed out “bad
humor”.
47m
gonzogil123
Of incestual violence is not incestual, but rather it is directed to an object that would negate the
incestual status: inorganic matter. In this instance a toy. It is before they 180out.
gonzogil123
The effectiveness in alienating into the image is much less hence the egoic antagonism intensified.
The narcissistic rupture is much bigger, and so is the banging. Speaking in terms of the libidinal
economy of, in this case no longer perverts, but psychopaths.
1h
gonzogil123
It takes place within a self-mastery set, and the 3rd temporal phase:"To be seen drive". Particularly
for the monopoly stage of capital as media.
gonzogil123
Yeah, she always resets at "scream queen" aka even further within a self-mastery set of
instrumemtalizing egoic control within "To be seen" drive, and under suspension of disbelief
squared so the fantasy grows in misrecognizing potency aka the effectiveness in alienating in the
imago intensified so the violence they experience as a result of the failure and antagonism is more
disorienting. Hence easier to register.
Next Example: Model wearing a “Fuck What They Think”

gonzogil123
Massive. International beheading then. Very much todestriebimg multiplier to been seen. 180ing
out entering with the minus phi @ intellect.
gonzogil123
In this instance it is not a neutral "I am free from the asphyxiating illusions of prejudice. It signifies
something other. Their renunciation not of the incestual object, but of identifying with that which
commands renunciation of the incestual relation. See Mustafa Say can on sadistic structure.
1h
gonzogil123
The bambis. Yeah. It checks out.
A crucial concept for the upcoming lectures. That of “the phallus”. Clearly, in our normal everyday
use, it refers to the male reproductive organ: the penis. But also to a Tottem. Ex: Dyonisian
festivals would place a penis carved out of some material place it on a surface, and proceed to
carry it on their shoulders.
2:09:30min But leaving these set of definitions aside. The most relevant for us is that it designates
“an element” or “term” that designates control. The horizon laid out by an initial position of
fragmentation. Remember the kid, and the promise of the mirror image. The phallus is a term that
refers to the capacity of the person to obtain a degree of control: however illusory (limited/mortal
reach)
You will see 3 graphs. The first two designate the circuit being constructed from its 3 rd to its final
form. And the Asansi graph which is the one the uses at 2:09:56min. The phallus is constructed, or,
forms part of the process that goes from the message to the gamma (in his graph) or I(A) in the
final version of the Zizek graph. I arrives after the object that will answer the question regarding
mortality is answered.
So, it moves from Che-Vuoi? Answer in a linguistically constructed fantasy (“Hypothesis” like the
way children faced their on deadlocks regarding sex with infantile theories of origins, that is to say,
of sexuality) $◊a. And the latter will insert itself in the message, retroactivizing the (A) constructing
the i(a) that will paritularize the moi (point of fragmentation) split back into the message, and
downwards to the point of illusory control: I(A).
2:10:17min But the phallus is also in unconscious position. Let us take the example of the woman
that could not stop talking. The latter was intelligible, but excessive. The excees clearly seen in her
relation to it. A demand that positioned itself above, and beyond every other need: including
eating, and sleeping. My comment: we can detect the same thing with capital as media. The
incessant need to, for example, the latest campaign to veil their genocidal hatred, “we love
women. Or hump-woman-thon” or any other capital as media expression. The excess, as pointed
out in the DVD “The Corporation” and a Ralph Nader interview, detected in the fact that they must
target your kid until they achieve a 1:1 identity with raping priests. Advertising targeted to a kids
unconscious during primary identification.
With psychotics what is the problem? They either talk too much, or, too little, or the content of
what he says carries no meaning, or, repeats the same phrase. Ex: I remember someone that used
to move through the center of Valencia saying “St. Theresa of the mother of God” (seems
obsessive, if so, to me at least) This is kind of a weakness of lacanians. They really do not want to
tell you the specificities of a psychotic state. All they do is give broad definitions of anyone under
transference, and free association.
The problem of the psychotic, according to him, is that they speak without control (but this applies
to anyone with an obsessive symptom. As the example he gave of an OCD person that kept on
pulling his pants up w/o stopping) being able to control his speech. The person that suffers from
psychosis lacks the “tool” that allows him to know when, and when not to speak. Yeah, only
addressing the fantasy formations as a result of the absence of identification with the N.O.F. But
this applies to Guy Debord´s “unilateral self-portrait” of capital as media. And they are Sadean
serial killers not psychotics.
To be able to speak when you are supposed to, and in the manner in which you are supposed to is
what we refer to when we may speak of controlling the signifying chain. Refering to that
instrument, secondary identification, that excercises that control over the signifying chain, and by
control we mean that capacity to know when, and when not to speak, and in what way to address
people (not with imaginary incestual violence etc. We can contextualize it to our analysis)
This point of identification, that “No!” of self-reflexiveness that is able to provide a narcissistic
injury whenever you have to register that what has taken place is wrong, is what we call phallus.
Let us say we have a signifying chain: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5….Sn. I can articulate a discourse with
signifiers. Signifiers here may be: a phoneme, a morpheme, a word, a sentence, a set of sentences,
a text etc. It is all the same in the sense of each one being able to be a signifier.
[S1 S2 S3 S4 S5….Sn.] for this chain to have meaning, what in linguisitics of the text is called
“coherence” as well as “cohesion”, and it may further fulfill the standards of “pertinence”, and
other rules of adequate mode of treating others via speech we have to have the phallus as the
signifier of control. Remember when he talked about language organizing the field of vision, of
those things that could be registered?
S ( ϕ ) : Phallic signifier
[S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 … . Sn .]
The phallic signifier is that function that allows for the signifying chain to mean something
specific. It provides it with meaning. It is what will organize it until all those signifying materials
combine into meaning. What the psychotic lacks is the instrument of control (exploitation of
inherent paranoia into a psychotic break) the psychotic can signify, but the x,y,q,z of each
expression from each other must be of a significant magnitude: outside the clinic.
2:15:23min
The grammar of the constructions of a psychotic patient are fine: article, subject, verb, adverb all
follow the right order, but the things you put in them might not make sense. It may lack logical
soundness (type of grammar), sense, coherence, pertinence etc. But the acoustics of the phonetics
are fine. Someone may approach you on the streets, a cop, with a gun, and begin to say “why are
you a threat, why are you being a threat?” over, and over. The latter sounds fine, but it is not
pertinent. If you do this over, and over again we have a problem. And what is the problem? What
is it that has failed? What fails is the instrument of control, the n.o.f of repression, or, master
signifier.
Phallus is before anything, the signifier of meaning as such, of lack, the master signifier. The
master signifier is the answer given in the second register to the initial identification with the n.o.f
of repression hence that is why you have “d” as empty then as $◊D (demand) S(A) signified of the
other empty, and $◊a. So, that you get
S ( A ) (empty universal )
$ ◊ a( particular chain)
0 at empty, then signification, retroactivizing empty initial position.
If there are cases of episodic psychotic breaks you may say that at the 2 nd temporal phase of
Oedipus when the kid replaces the mOther for the dad the identification that took place somehow
was not done in a way that would not lead to symptoms of that variety. It was accomplished, but
the way in which it was carried out led to psychotic symptoms.
In total psyshosis, where we may say there has been a disruption of the real, (not a desiring
subject. Given no repression) then we could say there is no relation to a master signifier. The
prohibition of incest via secondary identification, or, repression is achived given the kid will obtain
objects similar to those of the parent now sublimated so it may expand toward other people: the
initial experience of care, love, sympathy etc. So, love may function as the social bond for any
possibility of a social subject.
The homosexual position is achieved given that the kid continues to identify with the idea that the
mother is not castrated. But he does not explain this very well since gays may be neurotic:
hysterical, and/or very obsessive. Left like that the positions that open up are: perverse,
homosexual (identified with the other paradoxically. You need a specific form of homosexual
identification for n.o.f), psychotic. Almost too many positions really. The issue is what is the
subject/person/n.o.f you identify with in order to make it through the Oedipal phase.
Begin Here.
Day 4
Talks about identifying the evaporation with the symptom, along with dreams, and lapsus plus
(see above), meaning one thing, and saying another constitute the field, set of elements, of what
constitutes the symptom. The idea is to find a way for the patient to realize that, if there is a
symptom, then there is also a point of departure, which will also be the point to which it will
return, of this fantasy linguistic structure to which they are unconsciously identified, ex: OCD
patients obeying the demand to wash their hands, and allow them to noticed that it is groundless.
It is not based on truth, but rather a death-drive loop of jouissance, of anxiety, or shock as it were.
The $ on the lower bottom right is what the delta in graph one has been transformed into. It
moves through A into what was the message, and now is the signified of the other s(A) making its
way back towards the A which will sanction, or, not the message.
After that, remember the subject of pure need cannot, does not equal in a 1:1 relation, what the
code, or, code as Autre/Other is able to codify linguistically. So the latter is limited, mortal, finite.
Hence this will appear as “d” a yet to be articulated desire, or, need, d = then 0. It will be a
demand, articulated by a signifier, a signifier of the code as Other that lacks, is mortal, limited, or,
desire as other since it is not found in conscious speech. It will take the form of a death drive loop.
That is why you see a $◊D the barred, censored from conscious awareness subject, articulated,
finding expression in a linguistically constructed demand. The formulas of sexuation will write the
demand. So, S(A) = male logic, or, female logic axioms. Either of them will organize the linguistic
shape of the fantasy, or, that which will enabled the censored need to find a formulation in speech
so it may be satisfied. It will retroactivize $◊D. Hence we get
$◊D
$◊a
What we find in the denominator will head towards the s(A) and it may disrupt what you tried to
say consciously. But it also must be there as a foundation even though you may not suffer from
any symptoms.
What you will see below is the way the graph is constructed by the logic of the motion of speech,
and the laws that govern the logic of the unconscious: metaphor, and metonymy.
We may say there is a gap, a degree of non-identity antagonism, between the second register
above, and the conscious register below it. One of the ways of detecting the gap is at the moment
of censoring the message. Once it does censors the message elaborated in speech it splits towards
the second register. There is a remainder. And that remainder is the gap that will enable the
construction of the splatung, or, split in the person. The gap may also be seen in the Lacanian
algorithm
S
s
We see here the signifier in the primordial, dominant position. In the upper register, and the
signified below it, separated both by the bar, in the bottom register. The signified represented as,
or, occupying a position of effect of the generative logic of the signifier. The graph shown above is
the complete graph of desire.
One may ask where is the body in all of this. Clearly we have a thing that we may designate as
material: it may be assessed by the five senses. We do not have sex with each other with signifiers.
Yes, but this shows why the signifier, as he pointed out is predominant, we need a fantasy that
may enable the sexual act. If there is no fantasy there is no arousal. And analysis will deal with a
definition of the body: not the one other doctors deal with.
The graph shown above is the last graph. The ones that follow it are derivative. What we will call
the body aka instincts, drives will be situated in the upper part of the graph where the signifier of
the lack of the other defines itself, is articulated with, unconscious desire. In the upper part of the
graph there has been a metaphorical substitution whereby A ◊ D (graph III: The unconscious) the
Other articulated with desire is substituted for $ ◊ D, or, $ <> D (to read the relation of being
connected, and determining one another via difference: greater than, or, less than. The
Autre/Other now as $ articulated with the demand). The symbols that you see are called
mathemes, or, algebraic signs.
The mathema for drive is a way to represent the device, machinery, or apparatus of the subject.
The Other as subject, $, articulated with the demand, or, D is the way the logic of the motion of
the drive, sometimes translated as instinct, is represented.
You may notice that the A in S(A) now appears barred. If you remember in the first graph
The unconscious is innagurated with that of delta that the code is not capable of sanctioning. It is
what emerges after the mathematico-linguistic operation leaves a remainder, the way a division
may also leave a remainder, this remainder will be unconscious desire. And the latter is the
support for the construction of the unconscious.
The code, or, other as code is never able to satiate us in an exhaustive manner, a kinda
impossibility of 1:1 relation (the issue of incestuality) between the message/demand and the code
that verifies it. The S(A) is read: signifier (in unconscious position) of the lacking Other.
BEGIN AT 17:12MIN
.The adjective “lacking” refers to the code as Other in its inability of realizing an exhaustive
sanction of our need via the demand it allows us to articulate. It is always deficient regarding what
we ask from it (keep in mind the degree of defining differentiality: universal does not equal
particular). This experience of the lacking other in everyday life may be observed in people who
might have fallen in love. For example: if you are in love, and you are able to formulate demands
via the code you always notice that you never have enough, or, “too much”. If the other is the
code, or, a person then they will never be able to exhaust the capacity to demand things from
them. To extinguish your lack, or, desire as it were. And they cannot extinguish desire, because it is
a concrete limitation in their inherent capacities. It has nothing to do with an unwillingness to
make this happen.
You will also notice that within a romantic loving relationship the encounter with the mortality of
the other in being unable to satisfy the others desire to that extent becomes a motive (this
negation of reality) for a rupture in the relationship. Because the person that sustains themselves
in an demand that denies the essential feature of the other, their mortality, insists on an
impossibility. They become a heavy burden (recall the example of the degree of identification of
the mother with her sick kid: “When the doctor said he was going to be ok he lifted 10000 pounds
off my shoulders)
The Danny De La Cruz Example: Pleasing the desire of the other to retroactivize your own identity.
But let us say that regardless of: 1 + 2 + 3….n attempts you are never able to satisfy them. It is at
this moment when you will experience the ego not as retroactivized, but as a heavy, asymmetry,
entity that forces you to invest yourself, labor hrs, heavely on it, but never to arrive at a moment
of signifying conclusive construction.
And if in the course of the relation it reaches this point then the person becomes unberable.
My comment: Kant Avec Sade related. For Sadeans at the Serial Killer spectrum people become
unberable heavy burdens whenever they demand, or, refuse to substitute their human rights for
objects offer to them. When they refuse to retroactivze themselves as obejcts of exploitation.
Here we find what it an impossibility for psychopaths, or, serial killers, or, capitalist exploiters.
Let us take as an example the religious experience. Praying to Christ. It might be the case that you
pray once, twice, twice daily, up to getting on your knees, exhausting the oxygen in your lungs, and
offering them as sacrifice, reaching the point in identity with the brutalized figure of Christ, and
nothing may come of it. It very well may be that it is not enough since God keeps quiet.
21:57min
The type of silence we are referring to is prototypical of what takes place with the other.
Approaching the religious from a different, rotating, angle. Damaso Alonso (too easy) notices that
in the poetry of St. John of the Cross he encounters a limit with ordinary language, and out of this
limitation of the linguistic means provided by the common language, he finds himself in need of
twisting, warping of common day language to be able to convey what was in the mystical
experience beyond his reach as it were. This is so because what is characteristic of the mystic (see
Aldous Huxley´s “Perennial Philosophy”) of the experience of the limits of everyday language, the
code as Other, in allowing him to express what he wants to express.
Another example may be observed in everyday life. When someone says “my problem is that if I
tell you about it in the usual way it will not help me to convey what I am actually feeling”. This is so
because language is general, and our experience is very particular. If you attempt to fully fit a
particular experience, or, feeling in that which is universally common to all, language, then this
means that as one proceeds with the operation something of what I wanted to say will be lost, a
remainder, or, in excess of the means provided to express it.
Ex: if you hit your knee, and say “that hurts” and the other person say “Yeah, that hurts like hell”.
The degree of narcissistic injury you undergo is even more strongly felt. So, we have issues of
being able to convey what you mean, retroactivizing your position via the other, the issue of
isolating you further whenever you undergo a state of physical, or, mental fragmentation, the
responsibility of the other, and them retroactivizing themselves as impotent, or, attentive. The
difference, as a celiing case, of a medical doctor, and a Mengele. Etc. The expression “that hurts” is
unable to carry with it what you truly experience, the degree of fragmentation, you experience
such linguistic means as insufficient. The expression “this hurts” is as easily applicable to your very
subjective experience as well a applying it to an experience you observe regarding other animals,
or, people in pain etc. The latter a point from the first chapter of the “Phenomenology of Spirit” of
Hegel. His analysis of “This”, “Now”, etc. We find then that our subjectivity, or, particularity cannot
embody itself absolutely in the general conceptual nature of language.
25:05 min.
So, continuing with this line of thinking when we say that the Other is lacking we want to say a
number of things at once as it were. It will depend on that “x”, that particular “x” that embodies,
the Other, at a particular moment in time. If the other is language, or, the signifier we will always
notice that what is lacking is another signifier. One´s relation to language (as an Other) will be one
of “always lacking”, also mortal, limited etc. If the other turns out to refer to another person,
either your relatives, husband, or, friends then they will always present themselves to me as
lacking, limited, with respect to my own needs.
This relates to what we were talking about love earlier one. In relations of this variety, a romantic,
loving relationship (intensely so I am guessing, although it is always a constant) are always
characterized by an asymmetry. There is always someone that constantly asks more from the
other. And this demand for this fantasmatic extra. This impossible person that is not there, will
always find itself unable to be satisfied, or, met.
CONTINUE 26:14MIN
Lacan on love “To love is to give what you do not have to someone who is not” or “To love is to
give what you do not have to someone that does not want it” (all the negative logical operations
to allow for the continuation of motion of desire. The issue of exhaustability he has been talking
about)
26:52min All of the above to explain why is the letter “A” barred in S(A). We understand that the
common-sensical fantasy of what “reality” is (it has to be operative) is must always find its way in
s(O). It is the ground of the latter for any possible social interaction as it were. The “A” on the first
register could also be barred, but it is not done so because in our conscious experience we do not
feel that such is the case.
The fundamental fantasy, sometimes to refered to as “fantasme” or “ghost”, may be seen as the
answer provided to the Che Vuoi? question, the latter revealing an inability to signify that which
does not humanly signify aka human mortality (notice the need for theories of the functioning of
our kidneys, or, our central nervous system. The fact that one has to specialize in such. That
theories are to be tested given the degree of distance from understanding them etc) The
fundamental fantasy here is the output of the divided subject constructed via the object a, or, the
divded subject as object a
a
$=
−ϕ
$ ◊ a the barred subject articulated (put into display) with the objete-small a. Or the relation of the
$ with the object a just as the code is articulated, but now as Other. The “m” stands for “moi”, or,
the ego. The psychological ego, the illusory ego, the ego as trapped in specularity in the imaginary
other, I as an other, or, i(a). The moi beyond words, or, as rupturing tension (see “The unberable
specularity of the ego” lectures). The i(a): I = imaginary, a = autre/other, or, object-small a aka a
point of identification. Object small a, but now, not in unconscious position as it descends towards
s(IO), but in conscious position: the first register. The i(a) in the matheme m------i(a) is read as
“image of the object-small a” it is not read: “m” articulated with i(a). Whenever you see the
parenthesis it is read “image of…” in the same way S (A) is read signifier of the lacking other.
He recommends you read the paper on the mirror stage to understand i(a)
Towards the bottom of the graph below +

We see once again, despejando terms, I(A)

Despejar in Spanish refers to a set of operations you perform on an equation to re-write it in terms
of one of the terms of the dependent variable.
Ex: x = 2y +3. Despejar the “y” or solve for “y”
Substract 3 from both sides
Divide 2 on both sides
Hence
Y = (x-3)/2.
34min So, we have this term I(A) and $ at the bottom. The I(A) is read Imaginary of the Other. And
the $ is what Δ = need has aufhebung, combusted, dialectically transformed itself into. As we were
talking earlier about the Oedipus complex. If one believes that there can be a need before the
signifier then this would be a falsehood. It would imply the absence of the split subject a subject
not interacting with language (even in the intra-uterine life the kid is exposed to language, and
talked to). A fantasized mythical stage, a fantasized object.
The $ means (the bar that divides the subject: the “S” of subject) “that subject that has been
eclipsed (is unconscious) by the signifier”. We may use the following formula “the signifier
represents the subject for another signifier”. It is also read as barred subject.
Again the bar crossing the signifier means “the subject eclipsed by the signifier”. It has to be a
limited signifier, or, the gap between signifier, and signification. Remember Lacan´s algorithm.
S
s
It is also read as “barred subject”. The barred subject means, to the extent we are talking about a
social subject, remember that I pointed out that without an unconscious the possibility of a social
subject is zero. This is why I pointed out that the unconscious has an ontological function. It is
what enables the emergence of the person in the symbolic register, of the social symbolic
structures: sociability, and points of identification that must be met to relate in, at least, a non-
incestual way. That is to say it is what enables you to identify yourself as a son, or, daughter, and
that as such you have certain standards with which to identify, submit, and fulfill via your relatives.
Certain tasks are allotted to you, and others must be excluded. During the moment of
identification certain responsibilities will be enumerated, and others will be substrated, or,
rejected.
36:33min Ex: Let us take the case of incestuality. A son, or, daughter that murders their parents.
This almost falls under the register of the uncanny. It is something with which it is rather difficult
to identify. The potency of the incest taboo is registered in this, experienced/felt, antagonism. This
act presupposes the rupture of the symbolic order.
A typical reaction to people who engage in such acts is to deemed them as “not sane”, “mad”,
outside a set of reality principle norms as it were. Their degree of incestuality is deemed so
unacceptable that they must be separated from the general population. They cannot be part of a
symbolic/linguistic structure, because the latter implies a law (remember the rules of grammar of
which he spoke earlier) it implies the norms of co-existance. The laws exist to regulate that which
we call “symbolic strucures” organize, generate, and select modes, and points of identification etc.
From how to eat, share, discuss all the way to how to dress for what occasion, and why etc.
It is in this sense that Lacan states that “the symbolic structure is there from the outset” that is to
say there is no preoedipal subject. The pre-Oedipal subject is a retroactive construction of a
mythical figure that would come to occupy the place of what we know as the real.
As we pointed out what we have are 3 phases of the Oedipal process: 1) The first one corresponds
to the origin of the human subject where the human pup will enter into contact with the mOther,
or, some “x”, and since this is so they identify this figure as the powerful figure, the invested with
the libido-linguistic notion of power, the halo, or the phallus as that which stands for power. That
is why I said that the first power figure is the mOther.
In fact the mOther is attributed such a degree of power that the master-slave dialectics between
them tends to plants the seeds of uncertainty (regarding his/her identity: who am I answered in
whom am I for the other? This main Other), and self-doubt in the kid. Because they have the
power to pay you a compliment, but also discipline you. And when they get angry with you for not
having met an ideal you are impacted with the idea that they dislike you to a lethal extent (the
Freudian love-hate dynamic). This degree of power over the kid is rupturing enough to plant the
seeds of self-doubt.
We understand the kid must, at some point in development, reach a position where he is able to
accept the other under a set of well established norms. If the kid is not able to do this then we
would have a case of autism. In autism what you get, its main feature, is the degree of
identification with the other when the other is ruptured by some anticipation that is not fulfilled,
or, as in Dany de la Cruz sense the circulation of the phallus, and its retroactivization, or, the
retroactivization of your identity. The extent to which your desire is the desire of the other. The
extent to which you are invested in the desire of the other to retroactivize your identity.
If you are unable to identify and relate to the other it is because that function of which I am
speaking, that is to say, that function in which the infant is to receive the mother, be that phallic
object for her (having identified with the standard so well that you have fulfilled its demands on
you as it were). To be the object of her desire is to find the position (point of identification) you
are to occupy. It is only through the desire of the other that you begin to exist, that you begin to
organize, and construct yourself: begins with the mOther and then with the standards as you look
at yourself in the mirror, and fix yourself for example.
41:07 BEGIN HERE

44:14min To be the phallus of the mOther means: to feel oneself loved by the mother. To feel
oneself looked, addressed, and confirmed in one´s status, sanctioned all of it by the mother. In
Seminar one Lacan makes metion of Melanie Klein´s work given that she insists in the existence of
a pre-Oedipal phase. Lacan points out that the very same drawings she use to attempt to prove
her point always display the drawings of the mOther donning a concealed penis (imaginary
identification. They have probably not seen them naked, or, men, or, women naked. So, she must
be like myself etc) what can be seen is that the phallus, as a signifier, linguistified, entity is present
early on
(remember that reproductive organs are (linguistically) fantasized. They are the organs that are
solely in charge of constantly excreting all toxins from the body yet we have no problems in
touching, caressing etc during sexual activity. An indirect way of seeing this may be observed in
people´s adverse reactions to foot fetishes. They think it unthinkable they would ever be eroticized
by a particular body part exposed to toxins. They cannot explain to themselves how this could
happen)
So, since the very beginning, taking as our point of departure the delta of need, we have the
barred subject.
The reason why we are in need of using concepts such as need, and previously code, is because
both of them situate us outside the field of operations of the signifier. And what Lacan attempts to
emphasize is the relation of dependence of need in its relation to the signifier. Need is not alien to
the signifier, but it depends on the existence of the signifier before it may constitute itself as
“need”.
47:33min How may we define desire in Lacanian terms? When we have a need we proceed to
reach the code in order to formulate, using linguistic material, a demand in order to satisfy said
need. Desire = need – demand. What is desire then? Desire is the remainder, leftover, which is
represenatative of the difference, non-identity, between need and demand. Or to be more precise
the difference between need and that which I may be able to satisfy, concretely, with the demand
I formulate to the other.
52:10min Comments on identification: For Hegel one becomes aware of this thing that I am in the
moment I realize I desire something. For example: if I am hungry, order something, and tell the
person sitting next to me “go ahead and eat it, because I am hungry” you may be able to tell that it
does not quite work. It is at that moment of mortality that leads me to desire some x, hunger for
food, or, the intellect aka truthful answers that I may be able to recognize myself. But other
mammals have a sense of self via the senses. If you doubt it try to remove the dogs food when it is
hungry so you get to see what it does. They reach awareness, or, self-awareness via this privation
of being able to continue to exist in a flow of consecutive delivery of adequate nutrients to each
part of the body. So, from fragmentation (not-I = I) to fulfillment in the satisfaction: either
answers, accolades, praise, or, misrecognition if continuous praise, or, food etc.
The difference with other animals takes place in the way humans combust generatively from a
sense (sense data) of self to a consciousness of themselves. It would imply language at the level of
unary trait, or, unary signifier. At this point what is crucial is not to get stuck in desiring something,
but rather move onto desiring the others desire: their desire, and that thing which they desire.
That is to say that the other may desire me as the upmost object. That they may re-rank me as the
highest of possible things they could desire. It is when this takes place that self-consciousness
appears (notice the analysis with psychopaths, sense-certainty, and regression. The way in which
they limit themselves to imagos, drema logic formations etc). All of this is Hegel we have yet to
move onto Lacan.
When Lacan proceeds to analyze the modes of early, imaginary, primordial identification he
notices that what corresponds to sense-of-self takes place when the child is successfully, and
manages to successfully position him/herself as the phallus, or, object of desire for the mother. In
the paper of the mirror stage Lacan speaks of the matrix/organizative principle that will be
necessary for further modalities of identifications. They are the foundations as it were. We looked
at it in the Agressivity and psychoanalysis translations, and comments.
Identity arises at that place where in the relation with the mOther (matrix is a set of numerical laid
out, or, organized according to certain rules so their roles, functions, or, identities may be
estrablished) the kid feels he is desired. If this matrix was not organizing the elements (what is my
role, function, who is that other etc, who am I for the other as the most crucial question to
answer) then we would not have access to language in the binary sense.
Where Hegel speaks of a desire in an idealistic/mental/”spiritual” sense Lacan, and Freud do so in

an erotic sense. Notice that such was the shift needed to be made by Freud, and Lacan to keep
advancing on the subject of the human mind. Notice that the title of the paper from which the
graph comes from is titled “Subversion of the Subject and The Dialectics of Desire in the Freudian
unconscious”
“The thesis that being a philosopher means being interested in what everyone
is interested in without knowing it has the interesting peculiarity that its
relevance does not imply that it can be settled either way. For it can only be
settled if everyone becomes a philosopher.
I am talking about its philosophical relevance, for that is, in the end, the
schema Hegel gave us of History in The Phenomenology of Mind.”
Summarizing it in this way has the advantage of providing us with a mediation

that is convenient for situating the subject: on the basis of a relationship
to knowledge.”
As you may see from the quote above right from the beginning of the text we already have a
reference to “phenomenology of spirit”. So, there cannot be a pre-Oedipal phase, because the
emergence of every subject as a subject is due to the set of symbolic articulations, what we call
phallus (its organizing role. Remember his comments on what organizes what you may, or, may
not see) is what justifies that at the point of departure of the complete graph we find on the
bottom right hand side the $.
In the second temporal phase where there is a substitution, metaphorical operation, where we
used to situate the mOther we place the father
My comment: the mOther will be limited, and will display that something bigger than the child
commands her attention and devotion. If it is a single parent situation it will not be the parent,
although it could be, but the rules of sociability, her job, etc her ego-ideal, her husband that she
may love, or, grandparents as points identification fulfilling her desire, etc. Her points of
identification that command libidinal attention.
BEGIN HERE 58:50MIN

1:00:14min Returning to the $ and the three temporal phases of Oedipus. In the first temporal
phase the mOther has the phallus. We may draw the following graph
Father Mother
x F ( allus)
We may stretch the first temporal phase as detailed in the graph above. What is threatened during
the Oedipal stage is the position “occupied” by the child: being the phallus of the mOther, being
the all-satisfying object of the mOther, the latter being the fundamental condition for the
emergence of identity.
Student: so you have “two” phallus: the one of the mother that presents the child with an
unambiguous display of power. She presents it in a flaunting manner, and the kid as phallus of the
mOther for being the center of attention.
My comment: the way it circulates between both.
It is good that you make mention of this since it brings forth the polysemic character of the term
“phallus”. Because on the one hand the word, the word, phallus, refers, to the reproductive organ
that we call penis, but its phonetic, syllable phoneme component, makes reference, Iike to point
out how it has a relation of homology to faro (light-house in english) so “falo” and “faro”. By light-
house we mean that thing that allows you to guide you that allows you to refer to yourself, and
your environment allowing you to say “I am here, occupying this position”.
When we say that the kid is the “phallus of the mother” we are not saying that it solely refers to a
relation that the mOther holds with the kid: that of being her “phallus”, or, her object of desire.
The most crucial thing that is being said regarding analysis is that when we say “the kid is the
phallus of the mother” is that the kid manages, or, is given a particular, and very specific position.
It is from this position where he/she may be able to: say, do, stop saying, or stop doing a specific
number of things.
Looking at the graph we see that the mother has the phallus, but the kid “is the phallus of the
mOther”
Father Mother
x F ( allus)
son
In the second temporal phase of Oedipus we notice that the relation specified above will be
disrupted. Notice that whenever we say “father” we are saying “law”, “standards”, language,
socio-symbolical structure, a set of rules, and organizing principles, that the mOther has to answer
to, and command her attention above and beyond the child.
Ex: Let us take the case of little Hans which in Spanish it has been translated as “Juanito” in
Spanish. I would to look for “little John”, but was not able to find anything. Little Hans is “the rat
man” (self-ratting). One of the main problems that are highlighted
(that lead to the anxiety [as a rupture in the imaginary set of identifications] later leading to
identifying with an unconscious fantasy to particularize, or, signify this rupture (done
unconsciously) seen in the dream-logic formation of his phobia, for horses, not the father)
As foundational, the generative-rupturing antagonism, are the sexuel-non-rapport with the father
figure given that he finds safety in him, but clearly detects in him a threat to the relation with the
mOther. So, we have Hans in imaginary rivalry with the father. He loves and hates the father at the
same time (Freudian dialectics), it is this dialectical identity of the dad, the safety, and protection,
but also the threat that are confusing (given the imaginary rupture) to the kid. The kid is still too
alienated in the relation with the mother to understand what is taking place why this entity is
there as good, but also as a threat.The kid has to repress, and renounce being that object for the
mOther, and he is not going to willingly do that. The parents must intervene. It is non-negotiable
as it were.
Notice that we have been speaking of the first phase, and have reached its endpoint. Its endpoint
being the beginning of the second phase. Notice that during the first phase we were talking about
the phallus circulating between the mOther, and the child. Hence why we suppose an $ from the
beginning.
Father Mother
Phallus X
son
During the second Oedipal what takes place is the linguistic operation of metaphor, the paternal
metaphor, displayed above. As you notice the operation´s output displays a substitution. This
operation is crucial for the social subject to appear. The father is the one that, now, holds the
phallus modifying the position of the kid. It will be out of the antagonism against that structure,
the law, regulations, limits to incestual relations, that the kid will “decide” (it is not a decision in
the adult fully develop cognition sense of the term), what is his position regarding those limits, his
own castration as an object, and what his, or, her sexuality will be. The sexuality of the kid is
“selected” in the second Oedipal stage.
BEGIN 1:08:26MIN
What allows for the 2nd Oedipal stage to be successfully accomplished is a metaphor, or, the
algorithmic procedure that allows for a metaphorical substitution to take place. The father will
become the object of identification, or, desire to the extent that it holds (brings along with him) a
symbolic structure.
There is a study of stories called “narratology” and in it there is a term, ´sactado´, in Spanish, and it
means that a particular function can be performed by one, or, two people. This applies to the
n.o.f. The paternal function can be carried out by the mOther as she displays what it is that
commands her attention above, and beyond the child. If this paternal metaphor does not take
place then these subjects could not become social subjects. Depending on the extent of the
relation of the mother as the “phallus” of the kid, and her role as n.o.f it could be the case that the
kid ops for a homosexual, or, heterosexual solution. The choice for homesexuality is the selection
of the object whereby I do not perform the identificatory operation where the dad has the phallus,
but it is still the mother that has the phallus. After she forces the kid to renounce their position as
the phallus the kid has to accept submitting to the law of language, but select the object of
enjoyment.
My comment: What it looks like to me, since we seem to be dealing with infinitesimals, is that the
parents can only operate at the level of prohibiting incest, and forcing the renunciation, but not
selecting for them. If you pull in one direction they may rebel, and this may not be under the
control of the parents.
He continues by saying that the step from the first to the second Oedipal stage takes place after
the prohibition of incest. Once it takes place then, I am guessing, you have the antagonisms,
moments of non-identity, and confusion that precede entrance into the symbolic after making the
selection: same sex, or, different sex. So, the kid makes a decision from a point of singularity as it
were. Once inside the second stage the kid undergoes this experience of a threat of castration of
an imaginary variety (to remind you: imaginary identifcations are shaping, foundational modes of
identification)
Taking a male kid as our point of departure. When the kid gets to register his genitals he
understand what are his reproductive organs, but does not know how the reproductive organs of
others look like. He has yet to see those of a girl, or, find out about them to detect differentiality, a
certain negativity, is what he finds in the other sex. He makes clear that the passage, entering, to
the second temporal stage of Oedipus is via: the prohibition of incest and leading to imaginary
threats of castration. I am guessing this is so since the paranoia, necessary, seems to be a result of
the prohibition itself. The kid is not accustomed to not be the phallus as it were.
BEGINS 1:13:57min
If you notice on the upper left hand corner of the graph it reads “castration” the latter is a gap, a
place of inscription, upon which there will be written, particularize itself into, a linguistically
constructed (unconsciously identify with it) fantasy that will retroactivize, or, overdetermine the
message.
In the case of bisexuality what you get in that the kid answers to the question of who holds the
phallus with “both of them do”. The bisexual is another possible solution to the Oedipal complex.
They are all modes of becoming a social subject. The metaphorical substitution does take place
what is, or, may, become an issue is performing a substitution in such a way that makes your life
unliveable.
He explains that it is going to take a whole new Seminar to explain sexuation, and sexuality.
My comment: But just as the kid registers difference in reproductive organs, and experience an
imaginary (linguistic) threat of castration the girl “for already being castrated” will experience this
state as limited, or, being castrated herself, in a logic of differentiality, the boy with genitals is “not
her”, hence she is also castrated. In quisi formal logical terms “it is the case that I have something
that I could lose hence my identification with it is uncertain, not-all, limited, almost not having it,
because I have it” so he loses it as soon as he registers difference. For the girl “It is the case that I
am complete, not lacking genital organs, but since I register difference I realize that I am also
incomplete, mortal, different, and limited hence I also lose my status as lost object, or, complete in
myself”
In fact being able to register differntiality, sexual difference, does not exist in the first Oedipal
phase. The phase of linguistic alienation. It only exists during the 2 nd Oedipal Temporal Stage.
1:19;21min In the register of the unconscious, the upper part of the graph, we have 7 algebraic
terms: d of lack, or,remainder (the issue of need, and demand. Desire = need - demand) then this
gap will be organized, or, particularized in a logical “grammar” of $◊D, or, drive, heading towards
the signifier lack in the Other. Here there will be two ways in which an answer may be formulated.
A “female logic” or a “male logic”.
The fantasy will be written “it is the case there is a single thing with which I can identify that is not
exposed to the logic of censoring, or, will make me whole in satisfaction. A thing that will exhaust
my capacity to desire fully” the latter being “male” logic. The formula for female logic is written
“there is not a single thing that this “x” I am identified with cannot account for, or, provide me
with all the set of possible answers”. That is to say however the fantasy of each patient may look
like its grammar will display that logic.
After it is written the matheme for drive, $◊D, once empty, just holding that form, the way a
function is empty in its algebraic form with variables standing for infinite sets such as: y = 2x+b.
The matheme will particularize in the written fantasy. So, you have
$◊D
$◊a
Where the drive signifies a particular fantasy, or, master signifier that will loop on a death-drive
mode, symptomatic, it will be the fundamental fantasy. The aim is satisfaction in signification (the
signified in the denominator), or, signification that may derive, yield, enjoyment (but it will be
symptomatic. The patient is not having fun). The goal is to particularize itself into a linguistically
constructed fantasy, the aim is for the matheme of drive to loop over, and over again. After its
goal is achived in signification, the fantasy, it may loop to its aim: repeating itself. The particular
set of symptomatic linguistic expressions will find their way into the message, the s(A), of what the
patient presents under transference (remember Lacan´s “Aggressivity in Analysis”: allowing for the
full expression of different imagos: violent ones out of the result of failing to alienate, complete
identification through the process of signification: subject verb adjective etc)
1:19:13min Asansi´s explanation: We begin with “d” of desire, followed by the matheme of fantasy
$◊a, followed by the signifier of the lacking Other, followed by the matheme of drive $◊D the s-
barred articulated with the demand), to the left of the signifier of the lack in the Other we have
“jouissance” translated into Spanish as “goce” or “enjoyment” in English, to the right of the
matheme of drive we have castration (Small comment: as a remainder or gap. The fantasy does
not exhaust, just as the message does not exhaust the need) on the first register)
He explains that we were in need of situating the body within the graph somewhere. The body is
full of holes, pores, and bigger gaps, holes, orifices.
(Small comment: Notice that most orifices deal with excreting toxins, and there are orifices that
are libidinized (fantasized via language) while others are not all this determined by the
signifier.The linguitified erogenous zone of the anus, and feces as gift. This will later be followed by
fantasizing, linguistifying other organs, and orifices that also excrete toxins.)
He talks about the childhood experience where the kid, during alienation, excretes feces, and
presents it to the mOther as a gift. It experiences feces as his own thing. Separated, but also his to
give (small comment: notice the presence of language is very heavy at this point. Enough for the
kid to fantasize excrements, and present it as a thing he can understand as a present). The anal
phase is preceeded by the oral phase (as it relates to milk, and later wheening). The anal phase, or,
orifice will continue to be libinized by adolescents, or, adults whether they have selected a
homosexual, or, heterosexual object.
He talks about the third graph where the place for the matheme of drive, $◊D, had A◊D, the Other
articulated with/as desire. What he wants to draw attention to here is that, when one desires, one
does it with one´s body: This reminds him of a friend that would tell me “I love with my dick, and
cannot do it otherwise. The issue of loving with your heart is something that I cannot do. Love only
appears when I am aroused” it is a way of saying that desire is always connected, linked, with an
organ of the body.
My comment: Yes, that is understandable. And it is what Lander talked about when he said that
love is a passion: when examined in analysis. During the sessions when transference takes place,
and one allows as much room as possible for the imagos to manifest themselves (see lectures, and
translations of “Agressivity in Analysis”). This is what he meant. As he mentioned neurotics can
perform perverse acts, but for a neurotic this modality is too strict, too asphyxiating. It is simply
not enough. It abstracts, and substracts too much.
So, in the third graph, when we were examining desire with the Other this generates, or, leads
directly to the sexual organs.
We may also think of it, when one talks about desire, as any part of the body that is susceptible of
being libidinized, erogeneized, by language. This may seem like a small anecdote, but the Virgin
Mary itself was impregnated via the eardrum. He recommends Ernest Jones paper on the Virgin
Mary and her impregnation via the ear. (They still attempt to present themselves as objects of,
the standards themselves, of cultural desirability at the sites where they keep on abusing
Vatican, and Pentagon victims of child sex abuse. The site of incestuality, that negates
desirability universally, must always be fantasized as a site of potency, virility, unquestionable
capacity to satisfy the desire of the other. It must also be recalled while the victim had shifted
onto fantasy mode so that they may not register the truth. The tipical imaginary situation for
psychopaths: trying to reconstitute Al-arabi´s never objectified in the world “honor” or
“decency” etc. Same for other equivalents)
My comment: Snuffers, and people involved in child abuse, and snuff torture constantly use this
“metaphor” of ears, and them as “merchants of erotism” (JMK), but it is done in a master signifier
way. The reason is that they constantly have to resignify the site of barreness given they are
capitalist exploiters, and gangsters. The whole logic of their existence is that of exploitation, and
rationing via wages not fulfilling, or, satisfying aka increasing standards of living. Whenever it
happened it did so, because it was wrenched from their hands: labor history.
When were talking about desire in the last lectures all of what we are saying about desiring with
the body (notice: fantasized, linguistified body)
BEGIN 1:24:49MIN
In the upper right hand side section of the graph we can see that “desire” exhibits a split nature:
“d” (empty, surplus, remainder) and A◊D (now $◊D), or, the Other articulated, or, now in the form
of a demand. A demand, or, desire as demand given that desire = need – demand. Desire is the
result of a particular operation, its output may be seen as the place of inscription (universal), and
will also need an object (the particularization of the place of inscription). He will proceed to
explain why desire exhibits a split nature: as “d” and $◊D. The modeling of desire split addressed
both the source (its origin) of desire, and the object of desire.
In this sense the split/division of that representation of the body we get to see desire represented
as drive, and as d for desire. If you look at the graph you will see: (A) = The female, and male
fomulas of castration “For all ´x´ (x as such: in its essence) x is exposed to the phallic function”, or,
“female” logic of castration “not all of ´x´ (as such) is (determined) exposed to the phallic function.
These two modalities of having to unnegotiably relate to castration leads to “d” (remember
“castration” is the way the code censors. The main modality so that the social subject may appear)
after the process of censoring we have “d” (remainder of the need, remainder, surplus, extra)
, $◊D (algebraic-logical matheme for drive), an arrow that move from “d” through the mathema of
drive then into S-barred (A), here the formulas of sexuation will write the type of fantasy, or, will
display the empty logical form of the drive through which a specific fantasy may be written. This
logical form will retroactivize what the drive will have been landing on $◊D, heading towards
giving “d” a shape, and finally writing what will have been the specific object of desire, or, fantasy
$◊a. The latter will be the fundamental fantasy making its way to the s(A), or, what used to be the
message. It will then make its way towards the (A) of Other, delivering the i(a) object of
identification (split) in the conscious register that will retroactivize the moi (ego as zero, or,
fragmentation
i( a)
−ϕ
Since desire arises out of the antagonism in identity between the particularity of need, and what is
obtained with the demand (approved message) universality of language, Desire = need – demand,
this means that desire is always negative (it always has to be positivized in a particular object). The
question as to why love in adult relationships tends to disappear over time, usually medical
doctors attribute it to hormonal cycles, but in analysis, if it is a case of analysis, it has to do with a
particular form of egoic passion (where the possessive ego is constituted through its relation to
the object) that is disrupted once the object can no longer be possessed.
If the point of departure of desire is the difference between my need, and whatever I can get with
the demand I formulate in the message.
There is a film by Bruñuel where you have a couple in a romantic relationship. The same woman is
played by two different people. He is always after her, in a master-slave dialectic, where he has to
find ways to formulate the lover´s demand. During the course of events their capacity to fulfill
what is manifested in the demand is always disrupted. Finally, the day arrives when he thinks his
desire will be fulfilled, but as he proceeds to remove her clothes he finds that he is ultimately
wearing overalls and proceeds to tell him “you cannot have me, because you do not want me. I
will always be with you, but you cannot have me” (I can already see the psychopaths salivating to
this. 1:1 identification with the non-signifying other without dying, or, disabling themselves so
as to no longer be victims. Forgetting Sade´s and Lacan lesson)
You are never able to reach that thing which you formulate in a linguistic demand given that its
point of departure, desire itself as a remainder, is never positivized. You have to express a demand
in positive, assertive, linguistic terms, but it relates to a remainder that is a gap in itself. The desire
of the protagonist is directly proportional to what he is not able to obtain via the demand. He
explains that he watched a video on youtube where a psychologist, non-Lacanian, was explaining
that, in order to get over a break-up, the first thing you have to do is, right after the other, when
you may still have things to say, proceed to become a negative instance: not to talk, negate them
your presence whenever they request it. Here you can see how you have to become an object of
desire.
Continuing on the issue of love disappearing after marriage. He explains that there is nothing more
deadly to desire than to say “until death do you apart”. I am not quite in agreement since it would
be weird that you would marry someone of whom you could say “you do not make it to the level
of pet. I would be with my dogs, and cats forever loving them without a problem, but you are like
a termite ridden piece of furniture. Or used furniture”. Maybe since it is the priest saying it, and
not the couple then it could have this desire killing weight to it. But they would have to give more
details. The same with the phallus, heterosexuality, and homosexuality. Upon further reflexion,
and reading it looks like when the object of desire selected is of the same sex then the operation
carried out is that you love as your heterosexual mother does, but you do not love, or, desire her
object of desire. You desire as she does, but not the object she desires. As you may see it is an
issue of infinitesimals that are non-trivial. Small variations, and singularities that change the entire
thing.
When couples marry desire goes away since desire ends in the moment of fulfilment. In my
opinion one of the problems with love as it relates to marriage is that you are taught that love is
the transferential passion that retroactivizes your place as the owner of the object that will
validate for you your position as that thing that confirms your status as possessor. Love is not
found in commitment during fragmentation, or, mortality. The latter being the essence of what we
are. So, it is easy to see how it fails if your set of faculties is limited to a fantasmatic transferential
object that does not exist. The reigning mode of loving is regressive. You love like an infant not like
a parent. I think that loving as an adult, in the era of intensified incestual exploitative violence, and
infantilization (destruction of public education, and exposure to culture), is clearly something that
people identified as, paradoxically, itself being “a child”, “naïve”, “not realistic” etc. Asansi explains
that if love/passion has ceased to exist in the relation then you will see that if one of them finds
out that the other was unfaithful desire (in the form of jelousy) returns.
Begins 1:37:22min
Desire as such is objectless. There is no solution for desire. A way to totally extinguish it. Hence
the debate with Zizek and Peterson, that goes all the way back, about happinesss. Once the object
of desire satisfies, and you obtain it then it ceases to be the object of desire. The ability to match
what you obtain with the demand, and the particularity of the need leads to a contradiction, a
syntax error, and the whole process resets.
1:42:39min The process of falling in love (desire) takes place by constructing an object of desire at
the imaginary level with which you identify in illusory wholeness, and later whomever matches
this object, and triggers it in your head will be the person you have a crush on, the passion of love
will be triggered.
He uses Vertigo as an example. You have Scottie hired to follow Madelaine. As he follows her she
captures him imaginarily (as in the mirror stage), and as he follows her he constructs the ideal of
who she is after he is scoptically captured by her. She is going about her business, and as he
follows her he has to provide answers to every Che Voui question about her “She is doing this,
because of that, she is answering in this way, because she had to do this” etc.
My comment: With victims is similar, but way more extreme at the Sadean serial killer level. They
fantasize the whole surveillance operation. The same with surveillance capitalism overall. So, you
have repeated things like “I must not be wrong in thinking they must satisfy me libidinally when he
closes the door, and he is at home. He does not look good to me while playing guitar, or, proceeds
to learn how to dance. He is obviously, objectively, being a moron. We have all the data. He does
not. I have to go, and show this to someone else” etc.
Then you have the second part of the film where Scottie finds another woman that triggers the je
ne se qua in him that Madelaine did. And he proceeds to desperately attempt to reconstruct the
real woman into a fantasy version. Purchases the dresses, and the whole thing. But this is not love.
This is wanting to get stuck in fantasy, passion, libidinal obsession. He wants to get stuck in a
passion fueled by a fantasy. Adult love would be something else. The highest expression of which
is the stuff Hollywood brags about. Notice that he does not love the other as other. The passion is
an imaginary passion. It has nothing to do with her as a person. He loves what is imaginarily (the
imaginary register in which you have this logic of alike, and not alike, similar to me, and not similar
to me) similar to the narcissistic fantasy not what is outside the 3 rd temporal Oedipal phase.
Notice that the passion of love is fueled by the identity between the gap, the apparent 1:1
identity, between the gap, and the sublime object that personifies it. To the extent the person
matches that image the passion will still exist. To the extent that they cease to match that ideal,
where they appear as mortal, and not sublime, the passion of love vanishes. He makes emphasis
on the fact that there is a distance between the constructed image with which we identify, and
ourselves hence the object exists as a distance, a gap, and this is what makes it desirable. It has yet
to become an object that satisfies. It has yet to be that object that will have been the object
capable of satisfying.
My comment: in the case of victims. They are caught, scoptically, under transference, by the
mockability of the object. How much they allow themselves with a person as they spin in their own
imaginary axis undoing their interaction with the symbolic order, or, language as law (organizing
axioms like the reality principle) once they do this they may hallucinate themselves admirable,
because the victim lacks the knowledge that they hide even though they understand where the
need for hiding (unwilling victims: not naturally gravitating towards them) arises from aka they
agree with the victim that in their unfantasized, instrumentalizing their relation to social norms,
and not being identified with them, positions them as good luck at best low lifes. The latter
understanding is substracted in the process of desconocimiento, de-epistemologization, to allow
for a place of inscription for the fantasy.
1:46:59min
In the same way the abstract-virtual construction of an ego is necessary to exist, and think the
passion of love is crucial if one is to exist, and construct, and combust into existence different
modes of identification. We have narcissitic love, what we vulgarly call “falling in love”, and (in
Seminar XX) something called “el don de accion social” people acting together, and once the set of
linguistically, thought, organized activity ends they attribute a particular meaning, or,
interpretation to what they have done. The latter is another way of sublimating love in a particular
direction (implicit are modes of identification). Lacan insists that although love may be channeled
through the latter route it will address identification to a symptom. It will not resolve the
symptom, but mobilize it in a particular way without solving it.
If you see the graph above you will notice that in the first register you find i(a) and m = moi. The
moi at “x” that will have been that other, or, “I” as an other. This is the realm of the image, of the
imaginary, illusions/illusory, the i stands for “image”, “illusion” it is the imaginary capture of the
ego in the mirror. The place where the ego manages to identify/misrecognize itself that as that
other. Just, because this mental function is limited, and illusory does it mean we can do away with
it.
Satisfaction, or, pleasure is always encountered whenever we have a conversation with someone
else that is able to register, understand, and validate in detail the adequacy of the message we
have delivered (think Dany de la Cruz and students). The vector moi----i(a) cannot be considered
as good if it becomes a particular variable that is crucial for a state of anxiety, and other types of
pathological perturbations.
1:50:13min Death-drive as the logic of motion of symptoms. As we mentioned above that in the
construction of desire the body is involved. It intervenes as a variable (the guy that said he did not
love women with the signifier “I love them with my dick”. The signified being “love begins and
ends with it getting aroused and ejaculating”. The latter the bandwidth of his love. You will adjust
for whomever)
There is a generative foundational contradiction between desire (as demand: linguistic fantasy)
and drive. What we want to say is that desire, the one studied in analysis, only appears as the
dependent variable, combusted into output, aufhebunged by, drives.
Drives are the circuitral loopin pulsating-motion that is found in certain linguistically-libidinized
orifices of the body. The analysis of drive will lead us to the conclusion that “the drives” may be
anything except unconnected to the signifier. They drive and the signifier are closely related. Drive
is constructed in the unconscious register with the sig of the lack in the Other.
The fact that the matheme for drive is written $◊D. It is read barred subject articulated (now in the
form of) with the demand. When we see the bar on $ what is trying to convey is that the person
has alienated in the signifier, and has barred, blocked, eclipsed, disappeared the subject. The “D”
for demand (the signified as message retroactivizing the signifier) is that part of the message that
brings to the foreground the specificity of the object of our drive. The message, or, demand may
be done physically, or, verbally. If you grab someone´s behind the latter will be a message: an
invitation that may, or, may not be censored by the Other as adequate, or, out of bounds. There
are many ways to demand the satisfaction of a drive. If there is drive then there are demands
attached to them.
You can formulate the demand to yourself as in when you ask yourself “do you I masturbate now,
or, later?” you may answer “yes” or “no” or “I will try”. In the sex industry this must be very
frequent. It is because the demand is always formulated in language to yourself, or, another that
the matheme for drive is organized in the following way (has the following structure): $◊D (in
formal (logic: if then conditional modal logic dealing with possibility) terms this would read) “If the
subject is barred by the signifier then it is possible that a demand in language may be formulated.
So, $ is related to the alienation of need in language, or, a demand that is to say with the fact that
the drive must enter into working motion.
Footnote 29 of the Foreword of the book below will further exemplify the concept of drive.
BEGIN HERE 1:57:22min

I have been sharing the lectures on different Lacanian sites on facebook, and yesterday I sent one
to a Libertarian Communist facebook page, I had no idea if they had interest given the applications
etc, but I sent it. I usually don’t, but I did this time in case people might be interested. Today in
Lacanian foothold there is this really violent message about “Have you heard about Lacan´s
secretary/stenographers memoirs on her life with lacan: you can find it here (some amazon link))”
Ok, so I proceeded to save it, and do an analysis. After that I get this
We're shocked to hear about the death of our dear comrade David Graeber. What a
devastating loss for the movements and the left. David had been a friend of ROAR for
many years. We will miss him tremendously.
Ivan Gil Muñoz
Note to self (Analysis): imaginary rupture. Interesting selection "stenographer" as rival given labor
intensive in teaching, and not infantilizing others. The negative operations performed for the
metaphor: not translation, not adding material, not teaching are interesting for the construction of
the fantasy. Either way is his head. Tweethead. Must not write books as per Kelton, and company.
Ivan Gil Muñoz
Note to self (analysis): stenographer as the third term to reach the Other.must be sending trolls to
toiletrize, and test loyalty for no reason. Perhaps a variation on Steiner.
I thought to myself maybe he is sending people to Lacanian foothold to toilettrize the place I get
this picture from a lady in Lacanian Salon
It was followed by this incognito title “My Art Is Real” aka “the people we steal from are arrogant,
because they do not admire exploiters”
Ok, so they have been stalking, and seeing that I am posting translations. Ex-nihilo they undergo
an imaginary-identification (narcissistic) rupture, because they witness the personification of my
human rights as I go about my own business. After the entrance into the set of fascisnation-hatred
and imaginary rivalry they return the gaze upon what I am doing, and ´proceed to do the following
Victim = [translating, and adding extra material as well as clarifications etc.] Δ. Delta is a set of
elements combined together to retroactively define my position as some type of student, and
teacher, and translator. Graeber and crew undergo a narcissistic injury. Return to victim = delta
and need to engage in a number of substracting operations
Time 1 Graeber-------Victim Time 2
Graeber = Graeber = graeber = i(a) Hence the injury was dealt by the victim (I
do not know why. He must be dementedly Steninerian in practice just like the
rest of Phd Proffessors etc.)
Hence he will proceed to deliver a set of narcissistic injuries in return,

because that is not the source of his imaginary rupture.
In order to do so he must strategize. To be able to do so he must concentrate

his gaze, and select the target. Victim does not equal delta. Victim minus
delta = zero, or, place of inscription. Place of inscription may now add
essential features about the victim what will deliver a non-ideological degree
of narcissistic injury (notice the need for such. They will not go to my diaries,
or, see the pictures of my eyes to relieve themselves with them)
Victim = 0. 0 + female not man, plus her name not the victims, plus Lacan not
Asansi, plus memoirs not diaries revealing crimes against humanity, or,
teaching, translating etc. = object that reconstitutes into illusory wholeness.
The set of operations they needed in order to reconstitute themselves into

illusory wholeness look something like this
Ok so those are the set of matematico-linguistic operations needed to

reconstitute them back into illusory wholeness. Let us move on.
1:57:22min
Notice a small section of this sequence: they send a message in the self-
presentation of a non-message, and since that is so, and fails to meet certain
normative standards of sociability I simply proceed to analyze it, and do not
retroactivize the fantasy that they have been social in said informational
sequence. Since they have not been social it is the case that they are justified
in re-ranking the victim libidinally, because they insist on not addressing
them socially. Since that is so the victim is wrong, because their conclusion
about said sequence of non-social interaction is correct.
After that I get a buch of shit saying not to post the analysis. It is public. The
problem only arises if I do an analysis, and they cannot become Nazis in
practice by denying my human rights: that is to say by letting them determine
what types of analysis I do, or, do not. If they cannot act on Nazism then that
is when the degree of narcissistic injury takes place.
As you have seen from the graph the drive is retroactivized by a linguistically constructed fantasy.
If we were to say that the drive is capable to bring to us the object of satisfaction as such, not the
object of the linguistically constructed fantasy/demand, then we would be saying that the drive is
capable in itself to deliver to us the real as an object of satisfaction. And as we have pointed out, if
we are alienated from something via our identification with language, grammar, and cultural
modes of relating then that thing is “the real”. If you suffer from psychosis, foreclosure of the
n.o.f, then you will not be alienated, separated, from the real.
Since what I call “reality” (common sensical notion of reality) is the product of the signifier
(language) then when I proceed to say “I am interested in that person´s behind” then one must
inquire what is it that I truly want. When you say, depending on the occasion, “what a piece of
ass” you may not be articulating a literal demand. If we take the word/object “ass” on its own
(unrelated to other words, phonemes, concepts) it does not mean anything. If you are
unconvinced then look inside the rectum. It is just an empty cavity/cannal through which you may
excrete toxins.
If you get a colonoscopy, or, witness one (in identification with your family member, or, husband,
or, wife) you will see how it is irrelevant that the other is the one upon which they perform the
operation. The degree of narcissistic injury, and the weight of the anxiety goes up nevertheless. He
brings this example of a guy asking his girl if she could look at his hemorrhoids. The girl answers
“you have to be more romantic before I may have a go at it”. Clearly the issue here is that if she in
fact looks at it the romance will fade. My latter is true, but you do not need romanticism at that
moment. The point he makes is still relevant for you to see how our notions of common sensical
reality are constructed through the identification with a number of principles, and prohibitions.
And if one moves beyond them then you are shocked, or, said set of social practices, predictability
in systematically fulfilled expectations, trust, etc will collapse.
This rupture with common sensical reality is the “behind, the piece of ass” as real. What one
desires is “the piece of ass” as imaginary. What does command your desire is the imaginary
construction of “the ass” or whatever other libidinized object “foot”, “lips” etc. This is why during
sex we tell the other person “move this way, closer, further out, let me see you, look at me, put
this on, take it off like this”. We do so, because we want the person to match the imaginary
construction we are after. To be able to access enjoyment.
The same goes for guys and big dicks, as castration anxiety, and distance from the ideal. The idea
that even though on avg men cannot reach the imaginary construction the anxiety does exist that
there will a bigger penis out there that will be able to bring your girlfriend, or, boyfriend into
satisfaction. Some type of satisfaction you will be unable to deliver. The same goes for breasts no?
depending on the ideal-egp and ego-ideal it will, or, will not match the imaginary ideal. Let us take
an example from the arts: Reubens. Why does he paint the nymphets with behinds, and unburnt
stored fat as attractive? Behinds we would not consired shaped by squads and hence undeveloped
muscle as attractive? As models? Because the ruling-imaginary-ideal was different.
Another example in the dialectic of conscious, and unconscious. You may meet someone that
fulfills your imaginary conscious ideal perfectly, but after meeting them in person it may collapse.
Let us imagine skinny girls do not match your imaginary-ideal, but you go to bed with one of them,
and realize that you enjoy sex more with them than with someone else. Consciously you do not
find them attractive, but you find them attractive in the unconscious ideal. So, we have the
conscious imaginary construction, and the unconscious ghost, or, fantasy.
The imaginary construction of “the behind” would take place here m----i(a), and the
unconscious (imaginary) fantasy is constructed in the upper register $◊a---d. Asansi mentions
that we can see the drive operating, for example, when a couple cannot be apart from each other
for a long time, and have to have sex everywhere, and anywhere. In those cases you can see the
drive pulsating, and commanding. But it reaches a point where the ability for that conscious, and
unconscious fantasy to allow you to identify with them to get access to enjoyment stops. And after
that you begin to notice features of the person that are very real, but do not help to combust you
into erotism, and desire once again.
BEGIN 2:06:52MIN
What Freud demonstrates is that the logic of motion that governs the drive is organized in such a
way such that the drive will deny you precisely access to the real
Understand the real as subject, or, having reach the real as subject within these set of dialectical
syntactical-computations. So, the drive is a construction whose “end” is to block you, impede
access, to the real. It pushes you out of a 1:1 relation with the Other non-signifying noumena of
nature. An ontological impossibility against, restriction upon, incestuality. If you achieve it you
would dissolve, and die. You would be disabled.
The absence of satistaction of the circuit that constitutes the drive is what it (the drive) aims at.
The object of demand is its goal. Our point of departure will be to understand that drive is the
output, the result, the particularization of the signifier. Since the drive is a result of the signifier it
“mythologizes”. Lacan says that the drive “fictionalizes”, turns into a (linguistic) convention “the
real”.
Drive is an element that is generative of fables, or, fantasies. When I said “the piece of ass” was a
linguistic construction it is as much a construction when there is an “identity” between the empty
notion ($◊D) and its satisfactoriy particularization (the object that satisfies the linguistic demand).
Universal = particular. Man is mortal, Socrates is a man. Man being the set. And the meta-set =
Socrates (particular). As it is a construction when there is a potent degree of non-identity between
the imaginary-ideal, and the potency with which it fails to particularize itself in the world. Ex:
barren exploiters as God. Or Net-worther = top contributor to society.
Side comment: Desire = need – demand. Or the “d” as that part of the need that continuously
cannot be satisfied by the object organized in the message carried by the demand.
The drive, or, the circuit of the drive is made up of four factors. 1) The source. The point of origin
of desire, 2) The degree of non-identity, or, tension whenever the drive manifests itself. Have you
ever heard of the expression “sexual tension” (absence of gratification, privation of satisfaction
etc, castration in anxiety). So, we have urges as a mode of pressure that builds up. An antagonism
that builds up. Freud points out that drive does not have seasons, or, a time of day. It is as intense
during the winter as it could be during the summer. It is constant in this regard. It is a constant
force, or, Kraft in german. The drive will not disappear regardless of age. It will be there until
death. 3) Then we have the object of the demand. And finally 4) The aim of the drive.
The tension may be understood as a tendency to discharge. A discharge the result of a particular
state thrown aroused into excitement, because it registers, self-reflexively, or something draws
attention to itself, bringing forth arousal, and therefore the need to discharge.
2:11:26min
Since we have been talking about imaginary constructions we have been referring to the subject.
The subject as it resides within.
My comment: But it is slightly paradoxical since when you experience the antagonism of non-
identity in privation you do register “I have to do something”, but simultaneously reject a total
identification with that thing that allowed for the registration of that particular “x” that has to be
yourself, and not yourself at the same time.
Regarding the origin of desire we may say that it resides in a particular erogenous zone. The latter
is not always clear. If we take Freud we can see that he had a great deal of difficulty in finding the
erogenous zone of the perverse subject of masochism. The point of origin of the drive for most
people are the penis, and clitoris.
One would think that the end point, the finality, the aim of the drive would be the satisfaction of
the discharge. The satisfaction in the act of discharge. But the discharge is the dependent variable
of the signifier, the signifier as a mark of an image-ideal (the latter being the independent variable)
the discharged is not made with the object. As when we talked about the “piece of ass” the
discharge is made with, and if the behind is geometricalized enough by squads that approximates,
and triggers our ideal. We cannot discharge with a colonoscopy of the rectum as such aka the real
of the behind, or, object.
The discharge is satisfied in the syntactical symbolic articulartion (successful computation) of the
ideal-image. If you are in bed, for example, you have to tell, literally offer instructions, that other
person “why don’t you do it this way. Faster, concentrate here, slower, harder, or, softer” the
coordinates of how to construct that ideal image. And it will be very specific movements. Fairly
well distinguished, and in a particular quantity and quality categories. During sex what we desire,
and attempt to find is a modality of copulation that may be successful in constructing that ideal-
image. If the act of sensorial-arousal fails to construct that image then there is no sexual act. Sex
as such, minus the mental construction, would be something like in-vitro fertilizataion.
For the drive the object is that which is of least importance, because it is that which is present in
the algorithmic articulation of the drive. As it pulsates away in algorithmic motion. What is of
relevant is not the object, but the relation of the drive with the signifying articulation of the ideal-
image.
My comment: An example of the top of my head. The drive is written in algebraic form. Logic is the
algebra of thought, or, language. An algebraic recursive formal (logic) function may be written as:
If f(x) = 3x + y then add 2. If add 2 = x number then go back to f(x). The function is the drive, but
depending on the numbers you insert you will get different answers, or, objects. For example the
number 3 is needed for a triangle, and the number 4 is needed for a square. And pi for the area of
a circle. Here you can see the form of objects. The object of the demand not the object as such.
My ideal objects in women are usually sharp angles more prominent than the mix of round
shapes. Round shapes are fine to the addition, but the mix has to be specific.
We arouse, and allow ourselves to be aroused only if it is done in a specifically organized way by
language. Certain number of steps of a specific quality: hard and soft continuum etc. Lacan says
“the object is a limit around which one is kept in rotating motion” or the drive is this clock like-
gaping-pulsating motion. The drive is self-relating. The only thing that satisfies the drive is the logic
of its own motion. Completing the distance traverse by its own motion. The drive satisfies the
drive not the subject (see above). Freud “The drive satisfies itself returing to the erogenous zone
from which it departed”.
Let us be more explicit. If you masturbate your sexual partner. You understand that the
contracting-pulsating-squeezing motion takes place around the penis not inside the member itself.
You have to apply friction and this presupposes to orbit around it. You will be moving in a 4 th
dimensional register. The same with the clitoris. You excite her around its contours not inside its
cartlidges etc. Notice Freud´s definition of the drive “returning to the same place”. If you
masturbate your partner a single stroke will not be sufficient. You have to return over, and over
again.
Erogenous zones: the rim of the lips, how lips may be aroused, the borders and margins of the
anus, the ears-lobs, eyelids, etc. The satisfaction is to be found in the motion that takes place from
the point of departure, and back to it not in the object itself. The circular motion refers actually to
a looping motion more than an strictly circular motion.
Begin Day 5.
We had talked about the discharge being the dependent variable of the accurate construction of
the signifier. The capacity to achive satisfaction depends on this construction. I also mentioned
that the signifier, or signifying marc (see Saussere), or, put in another way if one can say that the
signifier is the marc then this “mark” can be “a verbal marc” (a letter. ϕ, that relates to a phonetic
construction. Notice the split here between the marc as empty signifier (ϕ), and the phonemes
S
and Lacans algorithm ), or, “the marc of an image” or a marc that signifies an image (a
s
linguistified image). The signifying marc will be generative in those two directions as it were.
This implies that the empty marc, let us say ϗ, imples two algorithmic operations.
What the signifier displays here its is feature of a repeated mark. After the mark linguistifies an
image then the mark will have been of a linguistified image. As in the case of the empty sig at (A)
that will have been retroactivized by a message, and i(a) of other image. The moi--i(a) vector. In
the logic of the graph that vector goes moi -------i(a).
When we talk about it retroactivizing itself repeatedly we are also referring to those moments
when, for example, you go to a prostitute, male, or, female, and they ask you “what do you like”
the answer you provide implies that there is a mark, or, signifier that has already been libidinized.
We may see in this example why the mark repeats itself: after it has been selected it will regulate
the coordinates of your erotic life in relation to others etc. It has been the mark that has
unquestionably proven as the mark (remember sequence of instructions in sex) that will enable
access to jouissance. Remember that we begin with pleasure and take it all the way to the end
until it combusts, or, aufhebungs into something else, the end of pleasure rupturing in the
appearance of pain. That is the way the vector need to jouissance looks like. The structure is
organized around a signifier that establishes a hierarchy of libidinized objects. It provides the
geometry, logic, coordinates (as sort of instructions) of what you will find of upmost pleasure as
well as highly disagreeable etc.
BEGIN HERE 3:34MIN

´The image of a part of the body that you desire is the result of the syntactical signifying
articulation after which the discharge may take place and the very much under quotation marks
“satisfaction”.
The graph above is the results of the functions lacan uses to model the drive.
The goal = the object we obtain after we manage to elaborate our demand in language. Where it
reads “aim” we have the objective of the drive, what satisfies the drive, to the extent that
satisfaction of the drive is achieved. As you can see the bulb like shape is traversed twice by the
rim. The circulating, looping rim, represents the impossibility of direct access to the object.
It is difficult to articulate together into a specific set of circuital generative relation all the
elements that conform, retroactively, the “set” of the drive (The source, the object, the pressure,
satisfaction of the drive) if we do not know what is the place that the drive, $◊D, occupies.
If you remember this graph

The matheme for the drive is situated in the upper part of the graph. The unconscious register.
The drive is in unconscious position. The looping circularity of the rim is crucial to understand the
relation of the subject, $, with the object (identification and) of its satisfaction: S◊a. The latter
matheme belonging to the unconscious register. The vector S◊a ---------d.
We mentioned yesterday that the only thing that is satisfied in the generative looping motion of
the drive is the drive itself not the subject. The end goal of the drive is to satisfy itself. Its capcity to
reproduce itself in the temporal looping motion that makes manifest its existence. This is why the
drive is not dependant upon the subject. It might be seen as an independent variable. Notice that
the matheme for drive exists in unconscious position at empty, and only later is it retroactivized in
a particular fantasy according to the grammar of the logic of sexuation.
It is important to remember that it is a crucial fact to understand that satisfaction depends on the
signifier as a particular type of mark. In the latter description we are implying that the imaginary,
symbolic, and real are all knotted (computationally-logically-grammatically) together. They
generate each other out of the set of mathematico-logical relations between the elements.
My comment: In formal logic propositions (statements out of which you may say that they are
true, or, false, that is to say a one out of two logical value may be assigned to them) are knotted,
or, strung together via a number of logical operatiors: “and”, “or”, “if then”, “if and only if”, “not”.
What is called a “string” to be “knotted” to another string is a proposition. “I purchased a number
of things today”, “Today I wanted to feed the cats”, “I prepared them their meal and They
proceeded to concentrate in attacking it” .
Example of knotting statements: (Today I drove to cumbres to purchase water) and (after I paid
for them I proceeded to drive my car back to the apartment) If (I have had more money) then (I
would have gone to pick up my books at the p.o. box office.) Notice that the object of the demand,
and satisfaction are implied. In one instance access is gained in the other is frustrated.
In the graph above you can tell how the register of the imaginary, and the symbolic are
intersecting, and generating one another. Since Δ then (O) and If delta + (O) then s(O). If s(O) then
subject+verb+adverb ---- (O). If s(o) + (O) then leftover or Demand = need (delta) – desire, or,
Desire = Need – demand, or, Remainder/leftover = need – demand. If (Remainder = need –
demand) = less than zero, some negative number, or zero itself = gap then “d”. If “d” then S◊D. If
$◊D = true then S(O) = sexuation formulas. Sexuation formulas = a grammar.
Here we will make use of what is known as “female logic” “There is not a single ´x´ that is not
exposed to the logic of castration (grammar of language in which we formulate demands)”
Zizeks example “There is not a single phenomena that is not preceeced by another phenomena” re
written “There is not a single representation that cannot be explained by another representation”
or my own a fantasy with the self-presentation of reason “there is not a single thing that I cannot
explain about myself by using political-economic analysis” (my relation to my unconscious. It will
not take me to that singularity for me as it were) Even if you are an analyst, and you have a
symptom you still have to go to an analyst if you are an analyst and have a symptom. If you are a
medical doctor: the same.
We move from $◊D a subject no longer as empty, but as a linguistic demand. The latter abstract
like: subject, verb, adverb, or, x, y, q, z, but not as abstract.Still abstract so we will have to
introduce more specific elements. The formula will write the linguistic object S(O) in it the laws of
metaphor, metonymy, and sexuation combining empty sigs to retroactivize the $◊D.
S(O)-------$◊D
After that you will see a vector moving downwards where “d” is. From $◊D to “d” to the output
written fantasy $◊a. Retroactivizing $◊a --------- d
$◊D
$◊a
Once the linguistic fantasy, point of unconscious identification, is constructed it will allow for the
repetition, but not satisfaction of the drive. The latter being the entire point since the drive is only
satisfied by itself. Its own looping movement. The linguisitic fantasy will head downwards to the
s(O) and become part of the message. It will retroactivize (O) and head downwards to have the
image with which the moi is to identify. Moi -------------- i(a). After that it will head downwards to
output out: I(A).
Begin at 9:04min
Ex: Apply Graeber computational “leftist” Linguuistic - coordinate mechanism to the following
unhornified set of snuffers:
Adelmo Marcos Rossi

11h ·
- Hello, Helen Caldwell?

- Yes? - Yes?
- This is the Axe.
Omg Machado of Assisi? I can't believe it, good, good! Guys Machado called me!
- Helen, I was sent via whatsapp the PDF of the book you wrote ′′ The Brazilian Othello de
Machado de Assisi ".
- Also translated his book Dom Casmurro into English, Machado. To disclose your work in the USA.
- It says here in your book that all the fault for adultery is Bentinho's. How did you come to that
conclusion, Helen?
- Look, Machado, if Capitu cheated on Bentinho, it's all Bentinho's fault.
- Do you cheat on your husband?
- Cheating, and it's his fault.
- Was that my mistake in Dom Casmurro?
- Unfortunately, Machado. Your book is wonderful, but you made a mistake in implying that
Capitu's fault for adultery. It was Bentinho's fault When woman cheat on man, it's man's fault. I'm
leader of the feminist movement here in the US, which works in defense of women. The woman is
always right in contention against man. Anything wrong that woman does, it's the man's fault.
From “An Introductory Dictionary Of Lacanian Psychoanalysis”

This term “the signifier” is made up of imaginary elements: unary trait, and imagos, or, linguistic
alienating imagos (he says images: that is fine as long as there is a background) and phonetic, or,
verbal elements.
My comment: meaing that after the construction of a particular proposition using grammar the
punctuation will yield a sense of something bigger, or, extra than the totality of the parts that go
into putting together the phrase. The phrase, or, sentence is a unit. A single unified entity. But a
syllable, made up of marks like: ᾐ, Ὓ, æ, ß, ϗ, ,Ф ,ф.would also be a signifying unit. Bigger than the
parts out ofwhich it is made
Ex: α, β, ϒ, Δ , ε,
1, 2, 3 , 4, 5
A, b, c, d, e …… Ex: N+ o = No, but “n” and “o” in relation of order to each other, “n”
being the 14th letter, and “o” 15th letter do not do combine to a new unit of meaning.
Another example: Numbers and images. The number 3 in geometry is used to construct, or,
represent the image of a triangle. The number 4 a square, the number 5 a pentagon, the number 8
and octagon as in the MMA “Octagon”. Etc. Numbers are both quantity, and quality. Qunatity:
how many, and quality: what position?.
Remember the positions may change. Ex 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Etc. Modifying positions 3512 yields another
number even a 3512 side triangle, or, square etc.
When we talk about an active drive what is it that we are establishing a relation with in order to
discharge, or, organsm? Let us take the example of “the piece of ass”. What do we identify with?
clearly with a verbal, letter, phoneme-constructed signifier: and we are combining the perfect
geometrical shape of a “piece of ass” (squads) with the combination of signifying elements (letters
combining through addition to each other into syllables, “perfectly” [as in a perfect triangle:
isosceles, or, otherwise] the perfect geometry of its sound/acoustics. Out of the perfect acoustics
of the linguistic construct “piece of ass” we generate the perfect imaginary-ideal.
Notice that Lacan Borromean knot where he represents the three registers knotted as strings (see
a Venn diagram in logic) the real (need? Jouissance), the imaginary a----a´, and the symbolic
grammar, or, linguisitics. All of them yielding object a, or, i(a). The latter object retroactively
becomes that for which all the other registers function. The cause retroactively becomes the effect
of object-a after object a is generated by the knotting of all the registers. Remember the “greater
than the sum of the parts”
Issue.
Example: Determining the function for a pendulum exhibiting simple harmonic motion
(youtube)
If you notice the motion of a pendulum it is like a triangle in motion. Remember that I said that the
“ego” a-----a´ vector or moi -------i(a) vector is situated beyond words. But I never said that it was
beyond the signifier. The register of the imaginary belongs to a signifying dimension beyond
words. Remember that the register of the imaginary is where foundational, primordial, shaping
modes of identification take place. I will translate the book from the New Lacanian School “The
Laberinth Of Identifications” after I am finished with Asansi, and later some unstranslated
paragraphs of Eidelzstein´s lecture on Asansi. This register, the imaginary, is characterized by an
assymetrical relationship between quality-quantity character of the signifier. It is more image-
empty-set than made up of phonetic-linguistic elements.
The signifier, think primary narcicisstic identification, and alienation into language, is axphixiating,
and a source of anxiety the less linguistic phonetic components it has. The more it particularizes
itself into an other, “I as an other”, the greater the distance, and the less the anxiety.
Example: God is….God, Black….Blakc, Obe is Obey, Reasons of State are Reasons of State. All the
latter lack further signifiers, They are used when the perpetrators run out of pacifying
particularizing ideological pretexts. Hence the psychopath angrily says “Obey, just obey!” “It is
because you are toning!” “It is because you are not responsible”. In the latter case it would be a
working class person that lacks resources hence their reach (responsibility) is less.
Or throwing into the lethality of the edge of material existence workers that are productive when
the profit cycle collapses. Question: Why are they being thrown out of their jobs when they have
been productive all along? Because it is expensive. Why is it expensive when all the products, and
shelves are filled? Where is the extra cost to society coming from when all the products make their
way to the market? Answer: Well, I, as a capitalist cannot turn a profit, Q: What do you mean turn
a profit? Answer: Well, every act of production in society must stop if I do not accrue a higher
standard of living than all other producers. Question: Why, why cant yours be as high as theirs?
Answer: Well, I have to always command more resources, use-values, than they do, and if I cannot
then they are no use to me. It is irrelevant that production levels are high. Question: But why do
you have to kill for a higher standard of living? Why can you not simply partake of a higher
standard of living? Answer: Because I just want “to be free”. I just want to be free and….that is it…
to be free. I just want to be free. No more needs to be said. Question: What if I abolish your
capacity to kill in that way? Can you be free then?. Answer: I just want to be free. Ok, you want to
be free. You will get a higher standard of living like everyone else, but you cannot kill. Can you still
be free in that set of relations? Answer No. Question Why not? Answer: That is how progress is
made. Question: Genocidal killing is progress? Answer: You have to break some eggs if you want
an omelet.
Question: If I want you as a cook you must murder? Answer: Yes. Question: Why would I want you
as a cook? Answer: Because then I could commit crimes Question: Why do I want you to committ
genocide at a Universal Healthcare massive level? Answer: You don’t want to. Question: I know. I
don’t want to. Answer: I want to. Question: Why? Answer: I just want to be free. Question: You
just want to commit genocide Answer: No. Question: Can you be free, and produce without
killing? Answer: (waits as he, and she look fixatedly at him as if he is negating them something
they want from him) No. Question: Why? Answer:“that…is…simply…how..things are done here”
Question: Who does them? Answer: I do. I am the only one that can make things happen around
here Question: What do you want to make happen?
Is that not being way to inneficient for the species? The species can only progress if you kill? Is not
the opportunity cost too high, or, your limitations simply too profound to own means of
production that may nurture existence? Answer: No. Question: Why not?
“Also…” Relate to drive in self-relating recursive negativity in Asansi.

So, an image has this image = not-image identity, a yet to be image, a will have been image,
before it is particularized into a specific mode of signification, or, a specific proposition. This
almost gap as such is difficult to identify with. It will not let us enter into 1:1 identity in this form. It
has to be image – proposition for us to identify with it.
“Those who wish to write quickly a piece about nothing that no one will read through even once,
whether in a newspaper or a book, confidently extol the style of the spoken language, because
they find it much easier, more modern and direct. They themselves do not know how to speak.
Neither do their readers, the language actually spoken under modern conditions of life having
been socially reduced to a mere representation of itself, as endorsed by the media, and comprising
some six, or, eight constantly repeated turns of phrase, and fewer than two hundred terms, most
of them neologisms “pizza-gate”, “brangelina” etc, with a turnover of a third of them every six
months. All this favors a certain hasty solidarity”
Notice that the main modalities of “interacting” are sequences of strings that reduce over time:
youtube, facebook, twitter, imojiis etc. As the strings are substracted it converges towards empty
signifying images of illusory wholeness.
Guy Debord “Panergyc” page 9.

Comment: In infinitesimal calculus we say that a series is converging when the addition of the
terms 1+0.5+0.75+0,0005+0,00005+0.0025…. approach, in this case, the number 2. In the case
above it is a substraction operation towards 0.
So, given that our relation of identification with the image gets more violent, perturbing, unstable,
unrelatable, the less separated with are from it in the absence of more signifiers, this means that
every subject holds a relation with the image that is eroto-aggressive (remember the “fascination-
hatred” algorithmic identificatory set from the “The unberable specularity” of the ego). So, we
have a recursive relation with the image. The first is one of attraction and fascination, eros, but
given that they are structurally different, there is a split of moi (I) --------- i(a =other), we never
reach, are able to fully fulfill, the immortalized petrefied standard of perfection reflected in the
image. The latter antagonism, necessary, part of human mortality, leads to aggression. The limit,
repulsion in gravitational terms, is necessarily experience as aggression. The image is literally
situated in a “beyond” from where we are situated.
Ex: Snuffer that “know” because they hallucinate surveillance that “It is the case that victims from
whom we steal do not think, and are literally tics” when the tic vanishes they experience the
disappearance of the image as violence. They cannot retroactivize the fantasy of being God etc.
A more stable relation with the image appears with the introduction of language. Notice the Venn
diagram of the Borromean knot.
We may ask: how is it possible for the identification with the symbolic order to bring this kind of
stable, homeostatic, relation with the image. If you remember we talked about the signifier as a
mark having two components: image, and phonetic-verbal elements. We may bring to mind the
nature of a number. A number has two components/register: a position (quality) and the quantity.
Ex: 1,2,3 or 231. One is the first (pole position as it were) number of the first sequence and it
refers to a singular unit.
Ex: Paquin loon friend:

After I made a comment inside my apt reflecting on the reason why some women were aggressive,
and discarding the possibility that it was, because they were involved in martial arts, or, body-
building. The latter two typically dominated male areas where testosterone is supposed to run
high.
In this instance this person appears the next day to let me know she is getting snuff surveillance
material, and once she received it this disrupted her imaginary-ideal to such a degree that she
prepared the next day to harass a victim of torture. Her imaginary-ideal was shattered, I was not
involved, but she knew I had done it. Notice that nothing shattered it. I made an accurate
statement. But “I had exercise the wrong set of thoughts” and the latter thing disrupted her
imaginary-ideal as a woman – woman that possess linguistic territory the way you “posses” land.
She had no trouble “marine-ing” it and sending that stuff in with Paquin pumping the roof
screaming “Hey, y´all is my friend mofo-b-day. What do you bambi slaves have to dish this way up
in here”
Now, here imaginary-ideal leads her to “love” whenever someone retroactivizes her into a state of
lunacy self-presented as illusory-wholeness. If she reads this it will fragment again and she will say
something stupid like “Yeah, I am in 1:1 relation with the beyond-language imaginary-ideal. You do
not think I can pump iron to get there?!”. She will do this, because she thinks that she can become
the in-itself “a” in a◊$. The latter fantasized relations with the will (the will is split from you. You
say yes, or, not to it) will control her the way Asansi mentions the signifier may control someone in
a symptomatic state. She is not symptomatic, but does merit to be stopped. Like a violent slave of
the passions (Hume( she will take the non-existent challenge seriously, because nothing is
“impossible” given that humans are mortal. Notice that what she gives to the victim, what will
control her motion, is that very same thing that her weight lifting cannot control. But I will be able
to put her into motion whenever I feel like, because I know she will not be able to say “no”.
Now we may better understand why the the discharge is the output of the construction of the
signifier. Because the signifier has those two component the linguistic, and imagirnary-ideal. Or
the grammar that will have constructed the message of the signifier s(O)-------(O) after doing so
it moves downward to construct the i(a)
As well as the object of the drive in the upper register $◊a. The object of the loons drive is the
victim. A victim that ceases to appear as a sexless-manati, or, a sexless manati that cheats her
from the never sworn loyalty to her to exist only as a sexless manati.
We may refer back to Dylan, and the construction of her, now public, unconscious drive. “To see”
(something: perhaps surveillance footage) to see oneself (self-reflexively imaginary ideal) followed
by aggression in non-identity, “sexless manati” – “manati” = “sexless”. Hence “To want to be
seen”. The latter the picture you are looking at. Relation to maturity and degree of attractiveness
are where the ruptures took place. Not, because I insulted, but because of “the territory” issue.
She presupposed I had lodge her as “the personification” of that which I talked about. Or
presupposed she could embodied the Code that censors the message, because she in incestual not
that which censors incestuality.
Notice that why can ask: where did the rupture with the imaginary ideal came from? Not from me
disliking them, not from me “insulting” them. So, where did it come from? The rupture came from
the idea that she knew (psychopaths know all about jouissance) that “it was the case that I found
her desirable, because in practice she would prove incapable of satisfying my

desire”. The latter does not exist, yet it was constructed, and “gave her the go ahead”. “I had
dared to find women that practiced a male-dominated area not pathological” The latter
unacceptable to her.
Today Carolinefullcolor, a member of “the left”, wants to show you this:

We may apply the same analysis, and the Graeber formula to both. She sent it before I posted this
on facebook. While I was typing. She is a stalker.
Her comments:
carolinefullcolour
❄️Which colour of clothes do You have at work ? Mine is Green ,day by day
My reply
gonzogil123
Thinking in politico-economic terms I would have to say that the practical logic of your
linguistically organized daily motion puts you in in per hr basis at netting = minus work. Or
unproductive regressive labor power hrs. In terms of human right violations.
Comments: Notice that her net worth “working as a nurse in a hospital” and as a model: 160k
followers plus corporate sponsorship are functioning as something lacanians call “agalma” or
money as “agalma”. The latter a term from Plato´s symposium. The degree of desconocimiento,
de-epistemologization, meiconeissance is much greater: “where she thinks and where she is”
Notice once again that we articulate the quantity and quality at the same time when we string a
series of numbers, or, propositions together at the same time. Ex: 1+2+3+4 = 10. 10 = true =
unfragmentedly, and perfectly true = 10 separate units and a set of 10 units in the tenth pole
position as it were. We may say that quality is a unit similar to image and quantity are different
elements like subject + verb +adverb + adjective. Notice also that as in number we may shift the
position
“Yesterday I was able to finish the Asansi translations” we will take “was” and re-position it to get
a new output. “Was it truly the case that I was able to finish all of the Asansi translation?”etc.
We may think of the “piece of ass” again. This imaginary-linguistic construction must meet all
linguistic-ideal standards of construction to enable arousal, and discharge. Just imagine the most
arousable woman (see above: for people who are Sadeanly cut, but not committing crimes against
humanity. They know why.) or male etc. If you do not get that image conceptually-linguistically
constructed then arousal will not take place.
Notice that when we talked about having erotic relations with others we were talking about how
one goes about asking to be caressed in one way or another etc. But we usually think that the
subject is in charge of what is taking place when he proceeds to emit these sets of instructions and
forget that the drive is occupying an unconscious position. The upper register on the right hand
side $◊D. If we pay close attention it is only after the person is split and finds the imaginary ideal
that he may move ahead and proceed to offer instruction. There is a necessary split/deal before
and after it is constructed. That ideal must preceded the sharing of information of how to caress
etc. Hence the drive and its retroactivized fantasy object are in control as it were. If the drive is in
unconscious position then it is not possible for me to control when I will get an urge for example.
Unlike the case above we exercise our capacity for freedom by saying “no” to a number of them.
After the drive is unconsciously constructed the thing I become aware of is “need”. Need situated
now in the graph as the barred subject $. Notice that the delta of “need” has aufehbunged,
combusted into, the barred subject. And such was the case, because in reality there is no pre-
oedipal moment. The phallus appears from the beginning.
The question becomes what is it that I like when I say “that is fine a piece of ass”. If you remember
in the iii graph that the code as Other was an Other articulated with the demand (I think this is
read “the Other now, after different algebraic-dialectical transformations, as linguistic demand)
A◊D the Other articulated with the demand. Remember that we first have “d” as empty remainder
not incorporated in the linguistic demand. The object we received after formulating the message.
The unsatisfied need as a result of a linguistic operation now becomes “not-met need”, or, empty
at “d”. As it move upwards it will become the Autre (Other) now as a will have been linguisitic
demand. The latter ceases to be as empty as “remainder = d” and now is more definite aka
linguistic demand. Yet it remains not as specific, or, as abstract as subject-verb-adjetive.
Now if the object that will satisfied the drive is in an unconscious position and it will be generated
in the unconscious how can we say that “we know (are fully conscious) what we want when we
like ´the fine piece of ass´”.
22:20min: Whenever I tell the other “put this on, caress me in this way” etc we find ourselves in $
heading towards (O) to construct a message, and tell the person the set of instructions. In the case
of carolinefullcolour, the weight lifting loon, and Paquin they instruct us to “admire their non-
existent relation to maturity, and degree of non-existent desirability”- Again what she demands,
and where they reside. Now, psychopaths always memory-hole, so we may ask: do they know why
they ask for this 24/7?
They know they like what they demand. The problem arises when they have to know what is it
exactly what they want when they demand what they want. Here we can tell of the split between
two level of the graph (how they differ and are combined) “what we demand (think) and where
we are situated”. Notice that allows them to articulate this kind of ex-nihilo demands is a
particular set of linguistically objectified, in the social realm, set of activities. But the problem
arises when we ask what led them to this since nothing happen. What is the obscure object-cause
of desire. It is an “x” a zero, an gap, a privation that takes them to this point. But it may not be
found in what one does. They find themselves in a symbolic deadlock, a sharp degree of non-
relation with the imaginary-ideal, and out of that non-coincidence they pass onto the act to
attempt to resolve it. In the process insisting that we are responsible for solving it for them:
exploited brutalized victims again 700billion pentagon and left-gobbelian friends world-wide.
Dylan´s entry for object-a later defined as object-cause

Agalma = little statue of a god. But in this instance a “more concrete god”. It, not people, is able to
command access to life etc. So, the depth of hallucination is greater.
BEGIN 25:26MIN
Todays example “Remember when we said no screen for kids”
Same operation here: Graeber formula, object-cause, - ϕ = - ϕ then this place of

inscription need to be particularized as “ Since It is the case that every time I realize that incestual
acts display my impotence as an adult in relation to others I always remember that the recipients
of such have not attain the levels of mental, and intellectual maturity I have (never) developed”
One add: the object of anxiety is always infantilized unwilling victims.
You may loop back to the analysis of capitalist, and ungroundedness. Yes there are tons of Graeber
operations like also confusing incestual violence with being able to accomplish the desire of the
other to the point of being an object of desirability: the one with whom we have selected to be
intimate with, and are capable to fully deposit our trust upon them etc. A number of strings
organizing the fantasy object.
25:26min
Why is it that the unconscious solution cannot be part of an intuition? Because it would imply that
we would be conscious, knowlingly as it were, of a rupture from the unconscious into our
conscious register. We conscious proceed to head towards our unconscious, then purposely while
unconscious select the way we want to disrupt our conscious register. This is not a capacity that
consciousness, or, awareness has.
So, where does it come from? This demand (drive) psychopaths always make? It arises from a
moment where having a moment to think things through is simply not possible. This unreflexive
(not thought out) urge that arises out of her, and this moment is generated out of an unconscious
signifier, or, system of beliefs, her personal historical modes of identification/relation to said
beliefs/standards (written by the sexuation formulae), recall the nature of the, in this case, serial
killer (pervert as serial killer), out of a deadlock, castrated in the bad-humor at best dream logic of
their serial killer madness (when they cannot further alienate into moi ----i(a =God)) they
proceed to precipitate into the logic of the madness of their requests to their victims.
We may go so far as to say that when the snuffer serial killer asks “validate this for me”, “Is it not
the case that barren exploiters, and slave losers lead losers to love barren low-lifes” they
understand the type of discharge-satisfaction they will derive if their victims agree to feed them
shit (construct their imaginary-ideal), that is to say, reconstruct the bad-humorat best, bad-dream
logic where they may once again enter into a state of desconocimiento, de-epistemologization,
misrecogniztion about the victim being responsible for what ruptured them. We can say that they
understand the satisfaction that arises out of it, but they do not know the origins of that
imaginary-ideal, and why is it that it fits the specific urge they have.
In the case of these set of low-lifes, Asansi points out, that given their status they probably get
offers of sex from millions of fans all the time (the least of them commands 160 thousand fans etc)
they get naked selfies of models offering themselves to them saying “any time anywhere” and
they probably say yes to whomever whenever. The problem is that when they have the orgies, or,
select the person with whom to discharge, and do so successfully they have to rush to a victim to
make those kinds of demands, because they felt they had not satiated themselves. Again, they are
as full of money, impunity, and luxury as possible, and they consume it to satisfy themselves. But
the latter does not resolve the urge. It does not do so until they may have an unwilling victim. The
same goes for people like radiohead (I will tell you about it later if you remind me), and tool from
US in my case, or, Queens of The Stone Age.
As you may remember I had mentioned that a demand sustain, and loop insistingly, independent
of our will. What holds together the two registers of a graph was the following axiom: “A demand
may loop insistingly independent of our will”. The latter principle means two things. First, there
are times when we demand particular things through: a gesture, a word, phrase, or, whatever else
without knowing why I am demanding those things through such means. 2) Or it could be the case
that I consciously proceed to demand something from someone else in a direct manner, but the
register from which the demand is issued hides the upper, or, second register.
So, we have two modalities of organizing a message to make a demand, but what is of relevance
for analysis is that there is a case where it insists independent of what we consciously want to do.
My comment: like the hysterical conversion we examined in Zizek.
My comment: We may risk organizing the elements of the “montage”, “assemblage”, or,
algorithmic construction of the drive in the manner mentioned by Dylan in page 47:
1)To see (the urge insists upon us, excerts a pressure) 2) To see oneself (register its presence) 3)
“To make oneself be seen” aka after identification with the imaginary-ideal we issue a set of
instruction to the others as to how to resemble it to enable discharge into pleasure.
Given that the drive is in unconscious position, the $◊D, even though you are aware of exactly
what it is that you like you are not aware of the drive that motivates it into existence.These are
precisely the deadlock, or, limits of our awareness. Remember that this graph, and the relation
between the variables take place in time, that is to say, they are in looping motion from delta to
I(A) and $ to I(A) over and over whenever we construct propositions.
What I want to draw attention to know is something counter-intuitive. The point $ at the bottom
of the graph has as its point of origin $◊D. The latter matheme is what unconsciously
unleashes/generates upon the surface of the libidanized-body a need that does not announce
where it comes from, or, how it has come to adquire such a shape. And even though this is so, and
it is situated in an unconscious position, it is also the cause of the urge (the: $◊D).
A type of cause that is not Aristotelian at all given that since it arises from the unconscious we
cannot say “Ohh, yes it begins here”. Even the analyst finds him/herself in a “not-knowing-
position” the way other doctors are when they ask for symptoms, and lab exams. As well as the
employment of the “medical eye” noticing signs of unstated anxiety, depression, etc. Just because
it occupies an unconscious position it does not cease to be a cause.
What we call the subversion of the subject is the fact that the cause of desire, what the person
desires, is not to be found in the conscious register of the subject/person, but rather in the
unconscious. What this means is that the subject is not controlling the representation (imaginary-
ideal) that becomes the cause of: an act, a type of behavior, gesture, of a word, or, phrase etc.
Remember the issue of the imaginary-ideal that enables arousal, and discharge preceding the
person before offering instructions. The cause is to be found in that other Freudian scene that we
are calling “the unconscious” where the cause resides.
This means that there is a substantive degree of antagonism, split, non-identity after the two
registers connect between the $ and the $◊D. And the problem arises, because it is in the second
registers (topological representation) there is the construction of that imaginary-ideal that we are
not conscious of. We identify so intimately with it, and it is responsible to the point of controlling
whether or not we experience pleasure, but we do not have much of a say in it as it were. It is a
point of identification (linguistic construction) that will enable us to select what we do, and do not
like, how we like it, what we reject, who we reject, who we accept etc. So, it is rather relevant that
we do not get much of a say in this instant.
35:00min The second part of the graph is something that is always constructed, yet never seen, in
our conscious personal experience. Now that we have reach the “knot” of the problem, or, how
the problem knots itself into a deadlock we may return to the definition of desire we gave
yesterday. And you will see how, taking into account what we have pointed out, it becomes a
problematic issue.
Desire = Need – Demand. Or Desire is that object that we obtain after we formulate our demand in
a linguistic message. Example, if in our demand we have 6 elements, but only obtain 0 of them, or,
none of them, that 6 is the negative term of our demand. The degree of impotence of whomever
is at the other end. Ex: the psychopaths we have been showing. International law demands of
them not to be enemies of humanity, and that they deliver x+y+q+z modalities of relating to the
other yet what the other gets from them is -x-y-q-z the latter offers us the degree
of hallucinatory delusion the personifications of the B.O. have of them. The issue of unproductive
regressive labor power, and incestuality, and the non-existance of any social subject. Yet they are
“net-worthing” etc.
BEGIN 36:17MIN
Having laid out our first definition we are going to add further details that may complicate
somewhat what we are taking a look at. If need is to be found in the bottom register: in the
conscious register, and demand articulated with the drive is to be found in unconscious position
then our original formulation of desire is more complex than what appears at first sight.
One of the interesting generative contradictions is that right after the operation of formulating a
need in a message that can be censored by the Other.
[ Δ+ ( O=Signifier ) ] +[message=subject + verb+ adverb] ϗ−−(O)

(Other )
The expression in the numerator, a particular proposition ϗ, is not in complete identity (one to
one relation) with the denominator universal Other as censor: what aspects of your subjectivity
ϗ
may be understood as socially permissible, or, not. Hence a remainder is produced. ₌ syntax
0
error, or, O aka nothing as remainder, or, 1 proposition does not equal the initial unlinguistified
demand, or, need.
2
Or ₌ 1:1 relation without remainders. Each unit of the set 2
2
matches with each unit of the other set 2
2 = 1+1
2= 1+1
Notice each component of the set 2 matches with each component of the set 2. Hence total
identity, and not remainders.
Ex: [Δ + (O = Signifier)] + [message = subject + verb + adverb] ϗ --------- (O)
ϗ = whatever proposition “It is the case that I want you to tell me that barrem-snuffers are
desirable to victims”
Another way of looking at the same thing is using the Lacanian signifier algorithm
S
s
Anna Helene Paquin

She is the person withmillions of dollars
Remember that the bar separating both inhibits a 1:1 relation of identity. The names Anna Helene
Paquin are empty sigs. They are names had by others. They do not belong exclusively to the
specific personhood of the individual in question. The proposition below is representative of her
personhood. Almost something not shared with every other Annas, or Helene, or Paquins. If we try
to do a one to one match of phonetic elements there will be remainders. If we try to do a match
between the signifier above, and all the qualities we may enumerate about this person there will
not be a 1:1 match either. Ex: Matching more than 400 pages of torture 24/7 plus the pictures of
my eyes
There will not be a 1:1 match relation. There will be a remainder. If we add how my elderly parents
have been torture as well as my bother and try to match all that to the phonetic elements of that
name there will be a remainder of her personhood that such elements may not be able to fully
express.
Let us continue with the Nazi issue as applied back then and today with everyone. German fascist
(political) capitalists (economic relations) “understood very well” that those they had exploited
economically for centuries, the proletariat (jew-gentile), where the source of their inability to
“exist in freedom”. Those they exploited for centuries, and later selecting sub-sections of the
working class to further exploit institutionally (increase the rate of political exploitation) through
pogroms where the agency that constantly victimize them by insisting for modifications in
legislature, and the economy to eliminate their existence, that of the capitalist, as the exploitative
entity that was exploiting them out of existence. Since they had been “victiminzed” for centuries
since they were the ones exploiting “they knew” that it was clear what the threat of existence was.
Hence Freud could mentioned that under transference (Lacan: imaginary rivalry. For transference
think auto-propagandizing via Gobbelian ops) “That which I hate (under transference) in the other,
in the rival, the different one (after an egoic-imaginary rupture is produced: aggression) finally is
that which belongs to me the most, and that furthermore it is a gap. A gap produced by an
operation of excretion/expulsion. This gap Freud called: Ausstossung” Revista Freudiana:
Instagram.
Cheap modes of psychology presuppose that the person controls the representation that is
unconscious. That it controls the unconscious register where it is generated. Clearly he points out
that in the formula Desire = need (conscious register) – demand (unconscious register) we are not
in control of the “d” of desire, and $◊D, which are situated in the unconscious register. The
remainder will be out of conscious control. But the point with Gobbbelianized Nazis is that they
self-willingly regress, and keep themselves there with Gobbelian passing onto the act fantasies.
They regress to avoid being in control, precipitate into a passing onto the act fantasy, and proceed
to miscognized the object of their labor.
BEGIN HERE SEPT 13TH CONTINUE 39:24min

Stalker child snuffer reacts to finding out Paquin =
God.
annapaquin
Verified
Someone who is no longer the baby of the family is having “big feelings”... #themeniceofvenice
My response was posted, but I could not copy paste it. 180ing out
Had a minus phi moment = minus phi (while stalking: not an official follower aka stalker). After
the egoic rupture/break-up with the imago it proceded to carve its name on her face, and
reminded her who was the boss in that relationship. She does not believe it will do it again. It told
her where she could get what it will never give her. Proceeded to pretend to belive the victims find
her attractive and re-rank her even though it, just this translation, is running at about 210pgs +.
She is in negative territory in the cultural terrain still cashing fiat currency devaluing societies
overall use-values. I am up to $50,000 + of free translation work just on analysis in the latin
languages while being brutalized by garbage like her. The latter has both an academic and artistic,
and disposable income multiplier effect.
Had to memory hole.
39:24MIN
Desire = Need – Demand. The remainder is forever out of the reach of your control. You are
necessarily split from the very same object that need had to necessarily ask for in identity and
non-identity through the medium of language. It is the case that people have an unconscious, and
that you are split, have to be, from unconscious desire. The type of strange inablility to recognize
yourself in the conversion symptom of hysterical.
Once being able to alienate into the Other of language and proceed to formulate a demand in
language it will always be the case that it is not in 1:1 relation with that need, need as such,
imposes as that which will eventually satisfy it. One could risk saying, given how it loops, that need
in non-identity, as privation, with “one self” or, one-self as need, the gap of need, and privation as
such, cannot be exhaustively addressed. One is in identity-non-identity with it. The way one is, and
is not in identity at the same time with privation. Remember that drive, $◊D, satisfies itself, may
only encounter satisfaction, in the orbiting looping circulation of its own motion. In reaching a
point of non-identity with itself, create the gap, that will allow it to pulsate, exist in time/motion,
once again. The point of origin of the drive is the non-identity between what I find (that which I
receive) with the linguistic demand, and “need”.
40:33min The reason why we are desiring being, the foundational principle out of which it arises,
is because there is an inherent degree of non-identity between need, and demand. The difference
between an unconscious demand, and a conscious demand never conincides.
Question: Could you say that anxiety is generated, because the demand tries to exhaust, satisfy, is
not the person, but the drive.?
Yes, but anxiety is something else altogether as it were. I will offer you a concrete example. A
couple. The husband personifies the male fantasy of what a woman fantasizes with. What a
woman is supposed to desirably-fantasmatically satisfactorily. The guy is always erect. He is
capable of always having sex continuously. The problem was that the woman preferred to have
sex with men that would reach orgasm, and the latter would not lead to further rounds of sex. The
question is “why does she not prefer the guy that is able” go on forever as it were?
My comment: My guess is, because he does not retroactive her position, concretely, as the
satiating object of desire. All she encounters is herself as a failure. Like De La Cruz and her student.
She never encounters herself as the person that “Ohh, yes. It is the case that he finds full
satisfaction with me” etc.
Asansi: You want to know why no? because as she confronts the erected penis she lacks the gap of
desire. As they repeat it over, and over it reaches a point where the drives do not coincide. It
reaches a point where the drives of each are really non-coincidental. Each unconscious need that
will turn into unconscious desire, and drive will occur outside the biological cycle (as well. Not
limited to reproduction) so much so that it could be the case that you may even choose to bypass
the reproductive cycle altogether.The lack, absence, gap is a crucial feature for achieving any kind
of psychological equilibrium/homeostasis.
Let us take another example. If a mother is constantly after the kid for some reason, or, another
what could you say the kid is lacking? In this instance what we would have to say that what he
lacks is distance. The lack as such. Lack, absence, distance ceases to regenerate in this particular
modality of master-slave dialectics circulation of the phallus. Anxiety resides in that there is an
absence of lack in you. The proximity to the object is too much. There is not enough linguistic-
conceptual distance, and self-reflexivity
My comment: In my studies of psychopaths you do notice how their spinning away from the
symbolic into the imaginary registers always leads to ruptures, that grow over time, at the level of
the imaginary. They recoil, and relate negatively to themselves in order to be able to taste all the
densly-potent caramelized substance upon which they get off, and make sure the other does not
“fuck them out of it”. As they keep this particular type of self-recoiling recursive self-relating they
will get closer to the object of alination, or, sumblime S1. Or the phallic signifier. They want to
position themselves behind it so that the individuated environment produced by language, things
are multiplied/individuated into a set of concepts, and names etc, does not position in front of
them individuated objets (from other mammals to humans to objects that may arouse you in the
world) with a certain mass that may proceed to fuel themselves out of the glucosely-fuel they
have been tasting. This latter modality of “self-defense” leads them to attempt to grab (enter into
identity with) the emptiness itself of the empty set of the S1. The latter is not possible since there
is nothing there. As they fail to do this, having to experience this inherent split limit to 1:1 identity
with the in-itself (the issue of incestuality above) they will, the more they approach it, the greater
the yield of the sexuel non-rapport, and difference. The less the degree of distance the greater the
depth of anxiety: an individuated entity does not equal non-individuatedness in-itself. This latter
split, or, non-identity they seek to resolve in the other via incestual exploitative violence, or,
torture etc.
There is a degree of absolute contradiction non-identity between the narcissitic object and
yourself. This violent degree of non-identity must be resolved in the other.
In the case of the couple the woman preferred someone that may display to me themselves as
lacking. As desiring subjects. In a mortal state of desiring as it were. That is why we say that the
drive traverses spaces that are unconscious to us, or, of which we must by necessity be
unconscsious. His drive finds itself at one end. She is the object of desire, but her object of desire
is the extreme opposite of that.
My comment: Again it is important to look at it, also, in temporal terms. The circulation of the
phallus, of the need into a demand of love to the other, is active, and distances drawn,
retroactivized, and re-drawn within structures: Psychotic, Neurotic, and Perverse.
I repeat. If we are desiring beings at all it is because the difference between the need (structurally
having to encounter itself in unconscious position) and the demand (which occupies a conscious
position. This generative loop is what creates the desiring being.
48:40min
Notice the following. The matheme of drive. $◊D, the relation of the subject (of need) with the
demand (linguistic message, but now as demand) is mediated by the signifier. The signifier is the
bar barring the “S” of subject. This bar will also be the imaginary-ideal (screen) that may enable
satisfaction. It is a tendency towards discharge. It is erroneous to say “satisfaction” given that it
would imply the exhaustion of desire. The latter would amount to doing away with your status as a
mortal being.
We are going to keep on traversing and circulating the graph of desire. The barred subject (the
barred subject of need) to the exent, to the degree, that it is alienated, and mediated by the
signifier, begins its journey, of constructing itself as a desiring being, guided (articulated with) a
decoy that we know as the image in i(a). In this instance we begin to traverse the graph in
complete form.
The mediated subject once again must find its way in identity with the i(a) as an other (remember
the mirror: getting up in the morning, and having to reach that ideal-ego). It will proceed, the
identification, through the specular capitation of the subject of need by the image that will
connect him with object-a, or, the gap
S i(a)
s −ϕ
Think of Lacan´s
“A new signifier: that would be deprived of any kind of meaning. The latter would be, perhaps,
would open ourselves to, what in my clumsy steps, I would call ´the real´”
51:38min Object-a
You remember that earlier in the lecture we had defined object-a as those sets of partial objects
that promises us, and like every promise this one is also a false promise, the capacity to deliver us
the lost object. Or our status in 1:1 identity with the lost object. The first instance of this takes
place during the feeding of the newborn. Once the child has to depend upon her mother to be
breast fed it is as if it returns to that of being eveloped within the maternal “cocoon” before birth.
That enveloping totality that her/his breast feeding relation to the mother now represents.
Yesterday, when we talked about the conditions of possibility for the formation of identity in the
child we found ourselves in need of quoting from “the mirror stage” in Lacan. Why were we in
need to do so? We needed to do so in order to clarify two facts: The master-slave dialectics that
organize the relation are structed by: 1) The kid as the center of fixated libidinal attention of the
mother = phallus of the mother (departing from lack to this point). It is important to remember
that when the kid has reached this point he is interacting within the register of the imaginary. The
register of shaping, primordial, foundational modes of identification. The imaginary capture of the
other, the potency of the other to do this, belongs to the register of the imaginary.
What does this mean? This means that the object-a is found as the result of the (formal logic)
conjunction (adding together two propositions via the logical operator: &) of the phonetic-verbal
signifier, and the visual-signifier, that is to say, the conjunction between the imaginary, and the
symbolic (see Venn diagrams). This logico-linguistic brings forth as an output in the history of the
subject (meaning person in the common sensical term of subject) a decoy that will be a constant
guiding point of reference.
Object-a is the constitutive element of humans. It is the foundation that will enable the possibility
of entrance into the symbolic. And the ontological, as the bar of the sig, resistance of 1:1 identity
with the non-signifying aspects of the person. It is not a pathology, but a crucial foundation for the
development of the social subject. It is the object of anxiety (the issue of distance) and the place of
inscription for desire.
My comment: Notice that in the case of the psychopath serial killer they reject the status of
linguistic alienation. Its self-reflexivity as they head towards 1:1 identity with the in-itself. The
latter impossibility leading to an imaginary rupture. This gap, mortatliy, limit, and the capacity to
register it is negated, rejected, as illusory, false, disappointing, disloyal etc. The inner split as we
said is resolved in the other since their object of desire is precisely this human-negating
incestuality.
That is why the: imaginary, the real, and the symbolic. The effect, object-a as output, will be the
element that allows for the constitution of the three mental registers as an interacting, co-
generating, “whole” as it were. A type of generative unit as it were. It is the element that
represents the common denominator of the three registers of the subject. Remember that Lacan
explains that object-a is a two-dimensional object: real-imaginary at least. But the imaginary
register combusts/aufhebungs into the symbolic, or, it is minimally symbolic.
We may also say that object-a aims at the register of the imaginary. It vectors towards it (moi
-------- i(a)), and this is why the image (also voice as remainder (objetal: unfragmented harmonic
unity) is a crucial element in what we find attractive. The element with a particular libidinal
gravitational pull to put it in one way. The image as illusory-wholeness. As the promise of
happiness. The impossible happiness of exhausting all desire. Hence fantasmatic, and illusory.
My comment: we may use it to contextualize the psychopaths hatred given the

violence/agressivity that is produced as a result of the absolute contradiction between the “I as an
Other”, or, “I as God” (the “God” sig is very public as I have mentioned before in political-econ
commentary) between the moi and God sig. The rejection of the impossibility of happiness in
fantasized incestuality. The rejection of registering mortality as human essence etc.
The other as an image, or, the object as an image. But simultaneously it vectors towards the
symbolic. See the graph of desire. After the moi vector it splits once towards the image I(A) and
the message, or, s(O)
Comment: we have a---a´ as points of imaginary identification. Genrative algebraic relations. It

may be re-written as: a-----Autre, or, o-----Other. Hence i(a) and I(A).
That is to say, the decoy
My comment: which gives us our sense of consciously controlling every last operational detail
involved in what we say. The potency of the degree of identification with language: our
identificatory familiarity as “another tool”. Here is where differences with Heidegger may appear.
Is a part of that phonetic-verbal register. It becomes what will organize what you register as
individuated objects in the linguistic-symbolic register. For example in church when the priest says
“And we will resuscitate, as Christ our lord did, in the afterlife” those words are words of a very
specific type of promise. A promise that aims to deliver you from a state of fragmentation, and
existential anxiety you find yourself in hence they bring forth consolation. That linguistic promise
functions as object-a at that moment.
Object-a also points towards, or one of its dimensions is: the real. Ex: the example of the kid
connecting to the mother in breastfeeding. And the latter as a mode to returning to the
enveloping cocoonish world of the real of the mothers organs. The “unlinguistified” organs.
Domestic violence: out of a population of how many couples? After the advances of raising male
children: have the latter been measured? If so when a couple gets violent, yet the male has been
raised, approprietly, but it ends up in a violent episode how could it be traced to patriarchy?. How
is it undoubtedly so? I am guessing you have to consider it unjustified traumatic violence deployed
against the person. So, you have to see what is leading to it. These types of questions cannot be
prohibited if there is any real interest in the issue. But you will be able to detect a certain
ideological exploitative moment if you get a certain reaction if you ask I am guessing.
Let us take the example of masochism. A woman that may be in a situation of domestic violence
may not denounce the case, because she will not let the authorities know. It could be the case that
she is in a masochistic position. If you derive pleasure from being beaten up.
My comment: notice that linguistified violence may also be a source of deriving pleasure. Insults
etc. Notice that it is linguistified. That the pain must be fantasized.
But this woman, if she finds herself in a masochistic position, and derives pleasure from it. It could
lead to death. As in death-drive the end of pleasure, beyond pleasure, or (pleasure) nth aufhebungs
into pain.
The object-a also points towards the fragmentation of the person. Towards death. Notice the
algorithm. Beyond that i(a) what you will find is a zero, a syntax error, and the violence of the
repulsive force, and the impact of its “aggression” towards you. The more you keep on heading
towards its, certain relation to them I am guessing, promises the closer you will get in touch with a
repulsive antagonism.
This loop from i(a) to minus-phi is what Freud refered to as todestrieb, or, death drive in “Beyond
The Pleasure Principle”
TODAY BEGIN HERE 1:00:20MIN
If the object-a is exposed to a logic of negation, within the temporal logic of its formation, then
this anchoring point of identification that allows for the generative organizing, or, structuration of
all three registers, will head towards disintegration, fragmentation, we begin to talk about death
etc. Pathologies may begin to appear.
If this object generates, rotates towards, the constructions of the imaginary realm then we
encounter ourselves with the imaginary construction of the subject. Δ----a----O----a´. You will see
the graphs a´-----a, but it is the other way around.
If we begin from object-a towards the symbolic then we generate, or, move to in a series of strings
governed by the laws of grammar that allow for the laws of the way culture will be constructed,
fantasies, and ideology.
There is a moment in which Lacan mentions the distinction between jouissance, enjoyment, and
pleasure. It reaches a point where what joissance commands is “do not have too much pleasure”
do not remain within the register of the word, reason, logos, grammar that allows for pleasure to
take place. You must shift to enjoyment”
Let us take the case of orgasm as pleasure. How long does an orgasm lasts? For a man, what, like 3
to 5 secs? And a woman? You might be able to tell me I am a man I do not know?
My comment: This is true, but the way in which it is used is to assert the difference in order not for
ignorance to become a point from which understanding may be gained, but to assert the
difference, linguistically, to assert that other women may understand their grammarly-bounded
explanations, but that such grammar is much like “Jewish physics” or “black mathmematics”. You
assert that the other is capable to understand that there is a difference since you assert it by the
means of language, but since they are addressed linguistically, and are to understand the answer
linguistically they will therefore never gain an understanding since it is all transmitted
linguistically.
And understanding must be gained by the other if their asserting their ignorance is to serve any
substantive purpose that will deliver an answer that may help resolve the issue, and contribute to
better relations. Otherwise it is pointless. It is just saying “Is it not the case that I hold the phallus,
never let is circulate, and this makes my modes of understanding superior” etc.
Asansi: so what like 10, or, even 20 seconds? But you understand that looking at it from the point
of view of its temporal existence it is not very long no?
When it comes to enjoyment we are talking about object-a but articulated with the real, and by
definition not-bounded, or, temporally limited relative to pleasure. This is why the end-point of
todestrieb, or, death-drive cannot take place within “limits”, or, “boundaries”. This is why
jouissance´s command is “Do not have (exist) within (the oscillating temporal logic) of too much
pleasure”. It is the end-point of pleasure.
Jouissance will short-circuit you about of the loop of pleasure: the orgies + drinking + dinning etc.
All those activities done to reach an end-point of excess. But once they reach excess, or, jouissance
it will shut you out of it. Or you may get stuck, but that is when pleasure ends, and it becomes a
torment. Like being strung-out. Being strung-out, or, withdrawing from drugs does not let go of
you. It lasts forever as it were.
Notice that this is why Jouissance, Enjoyment is situated in the unconscious register: “Goze”.
My comment: You will see that Jouissance will transformed it-self, aufhebung itself into “others”,
$◊D, and the representation of $◊a. Jouissance will be that thing that traverses, fuels into
generative-logic motion, the logic of sexuation, or, signifier of the lack in the other (the “d” as
empty after signification, as a zero, a remainder, unaccountable for by the code as Other)
Jouissance will be the element (unspecified warping negation) that will traverse the signifier of the
lacking other, S(O) as well as the matheme for drive. Jouissance will head towards castration, limit,
non-identity between itself, and that which it will particularize itself into.
If jouissance is above then where is one to find pleasure? Pleasure is found in the bottom register.
In the act of signification, and the object that is obtained with the linguistic demand. The
remainder, surplus, “d” what will not be censored by the code as Other will be the “stuff” out of
which jouissance is made: zero, nothing, a remainder w/o a name, a representation. It will have
been some linguistic representation later etc.
Question: about pleasure and pain
Answer: Well, yeah it is important to take a look at some specificities. So, we have the texts of
Sacher Masoch were certain limitations to what he is exposed to are not found. Pleasure through
the negation of pleasure. Or pleasure, or, the drive satisfied in the negation, or, when pain is
encountered.
My comment: Notice that in the first register we may encounter simple plesures in being able to
communicate what we want. In signification. Ex: people with “OCD” (pentagon-mengeleing
torture) have difficulty completing sentences. It is difficult for them to encounter the satisfaction
of signifying, that is to say, the child-rapists soldier cashing checks from the pentagon
concentrating in schoking the person outside the possibility of signifying. They shock them out of
signification, and asphyxiate them back towards need. And as Asansi explained this loops them
back to the upper register where jouissace, goze, is found. They want to infantilize them via
brutality. This is also found in Sade. Towards the end of philosophy in the Boudiour when
Dolmance manages to saw the woman so she may not be able to enunciate the law as it were.
It is different to occupy a masochist position that is reached via agreement “you may allow this
with myself up to this point”. The latter important to read with “Philosophy in the Boudoir” since
the maxim in Sade is “I have the right of enjoyment over your body anyone can say to me”. I tried
to purchase it since penguin sells it so I could study the “perfect object of pleasure” for the serial
killer capitalists 1%. I was also interested in Nabokov´s Lolita as a study of similar issues.
So, we find modalities of masochism, deriving pleasure from it, that are enabled by certain
fantasies, $◊a, imaginary (unconscious) masochism where the person is unaware of their
unconscious fantasy that states that they are being victimized (see serial killer 1% analysis.
Breaking in, and then claiming they are victimized etc. The latter is a simple case. And slightly less
complex to that of unconscious fantasies: in a sense)
Then you have other modalities: like precipitating into an unconsciously constructing fantasy
scenario where you derive pleasure from pain, but you would not actually do it in real life.
If we take masochism as part of the perverse structure that, in this instance, generates masochistic
fantasies to reach jouissance we would find that masochism is better thought as a field. The
perverse structure set on masochism has a range of possible variations, and positions that it may
allow the person to occupy.
Let us take a very strict, a masochist pact, there was a person that liked to be tied as a rosted pig
for chrismas, and proceed to be put in the oven. And he would only reach orgasm (the Sadean
fantasy is very pronounced here. As in the case of the flasher) when they would put him in an
over, and would pass out given the degree of asphyxiating-out-of-consciousness pain.
One may say that a type of masochism is imaginary if the person attempts to reach genital orgasm
by constructing a linguistically constructed fantasy scenario with which he will identify.
In what we would call real-masochism we would be talking about the erogenous zone would be
linked to destruction, dismemberment.
1:11:07min
Question: masochism, guilt , and drives? Guilt as a type of drive.
Answer: Yes, but we would ask, from the perpective of an unconscious drive, where is this guilt
pointing to: what is it related to? What is its goal? Because, exploring the issue somewhat, as soon
as we think of guilt, and the narcissistic injury that guilt produces, is the result of a logic of
punishment. Relating, identifying with a standard then shifting to a position where we have failed
to meet it, and the output being a narcissistic injury.
My comment: I am uncertain if the narcissistic injury goes beyond simply registering the truth of
“Ohh, I have failed to act the way that I should towards that person etc”. I do not know if it is the
first step in a sequence of what he calls “punishment”.
But were one to agree that its end-goal is punishment then punishment would be situated where
we see, in the upper register, heading towards the right hand side of the matheme where it reads
“castration”. That is to say guilt as negation will undergo through a process of being negated itself
in “castration”. So, guilt is generated, and heads towards “castration” as end-goal.
There are modalities of experiencing guilt where the person experiences guilt, but they do not
know why. In this case this is so, because the drive is unconscious. It appears in the conscious
register as guilt, but its orgins are not accessible to instropection. And when you hit this deadlock
then you may go to analysis etc. If the drive turns into an endless todestrieb-multiplier undead
demand that insists regardless of how ill it makes you feel.
In cases of masochism. The unconscious (notice: unconscious) guilt drive arrives at consciousness.
You do not know its origins, and you experience the need for punishment, because I derive
pleasure from said punishment. Even though the tendency of the unconscious drive leads to
enjoyment.
My: Notice the circuit of the motion of the drive where it begins and ends. There is a moment in its
oscillating construction of itself where pleasure is experienced but the drive itself pushes the
person towards jouissance which is what will satisfy it.
But guilt may not be the ultimate cause of the narcissistic injury: masochism. It may be castration,
or, destruction. The ultimate cause may reside with the death-drive-multiplier logic (see Kenesian
multiplier youtube. A looping mathematical model to understand circuits that loop themselves
etc.) that is found in the second register.
1:12:35min Question: About masochism
Answer: We may proceed to take a look at a masochistic relation where the woman finds safety in
satisfying the desire of the other by positioning herself as the object of violence. If we ask “Why is
it that women, or, men, find a position of safety once they satisfy this other in this negating,
destructive position they identify/assume for themselves” we may notice that it has already taken
the shape of an unconscious fantasy “to fell safe within destruction”
(See Orwell´s freedom is slavery. His experience in propaganda in the BBC, and background in
literature (stories, novels etc. The implicit psychology they teach. And what he saw in practice. In
Burma, Spain, England etc. Physical military violence, mental violence via propaganda aka
destroying your human faculties). Had read Ulysses etc. Someone that understood the military,
capital as media, and fascism. Also notice that it is like accepting relation of capitalist exploitation.
We will be safe if we do not defend our lives, the yellow sig, or, we will be safe, jobs etc, if we
allow them to increase the rate of exploitation. See workers contracts at wsws.org)
To have identified with that unconsciously constructed fantasy amounts to misrecognize,

desconocer, the origin of the motion of this specific drive: to be unconscious of it. The problem for
men, or, women in this position is that others may misunderstand it and think “well, that is the
way they derive pleasure”. But it may not be pleasure (first register) the place from which it is
taken place. What may be holding them in that position is an unconscious identification grounded
in jouissance. And if it is jouissance then it becomes an issue. It becomes dangerous for the person
since it is further outside their reach as it were.
My comments: May have good applications for psychopaths since they reject the 1 st register as
much as possible, and are net-worthing like mad men and women. Szun Tsu applies all the way
here. Deception, and the unconscious fantasy. Our victims are: “no bodies, tools, tics, leeches, we
can face it, because we are Gobbelianly propaganzed, have to compartmentalize that is why we
can face the truths”etc.
If it is a problem of a symbolically effective alienating unconscious fantasy (with which we have

identified) held together by jouissance then it would be necessary to find a way to no longer
identify with the fantasy so the person may exercise the choice of not going back, or, going back,
but under conditions etc: depending on the situation. What may keep a person stuck in a situation
like that is the enjoyment they pretend they are deriving from it, because it is clear that
enjoyment is not something reachable. It is a negative instance. The negation of pleasure. It repels
you. It pushes you back. You cannot simply hold it in your hands. Unless it is at the point of
fragmentation of which we spoke. But that would be “not possessing it” it is more like crashing.
1:15:26min Question: Overdose on drugs, and pleasure.
Answer: Well, what yields pleasure is dosages of drugs not the overdose. Even though every
attempt tries to yield further pleasure.
Question: Women trapped in masochistic relationships, and causes.
Answers: When I speak of causes I am not referring to causes in the Aristotelic sense. I am
referring to causes about ourselves that we do not know about ourselves. When we say that
enjoyment is opposed to pleasure is because pleasure depends in the most strictest of senses of
the signifier, and from this it follows that it belongs to symbolic structures.
Why do we say that jouissance, enjoyment is that element that resides outside the symbolic pact?
Ex: a couple that plans to have kids. The sex is no longer veered towards pleasure. In that instance
they need to go to a doctor, and the doctor may say “You must repress your urges, and you cannot
have sex for so many months. I need the accumulation of semen to reach a certain peak. I need
your wife to be ready in certain biological respects” etc.
In this instance sex is subordinated to the linguisitic-symbolic pact of agreeing to have kids
between them. The goze, or, enjoyment would find itself when the moment of having sex arrives,
and one of them breaks the pact in a sadistic manner saying “I wont do it because I feel like saying
no to you”. That kind of narcissistic injury perpetrated on the other by rupturing the socio-
symbolic (social subject not objectifiying itself as per Hegel) they had agreed. That “I feel like not
doing it, because I simply feel like it” (lack of explanation as an explanation in itself. Catering to
your autonomy to say no) positions itself outside the symbolic, and pleasure.
So, enjoyment is conceptualized as that element outside the symbolic pact that, in a negative way,
in a privating way, let us not think of it as an assertive judge-like agency that will be scanning each
instance of pleasure seeking, and will register it, and proceed to say “not this one” etc. What we
mean is that jouissance prohibits to the extent that it finds itself outside the symbolic-pact.
Rotating around it. It is like saying “It is prohibited, because if you step outside these boundaries
then you are outside. It will no longer be applicable”
1:20:06min Question: Returning to the case of women that are in situations where they would
prefer not be. I am referring to women. What is the element that forces them to always identify to
that link that reconnects them to that relation.
ANSWER: You are correct in saying that what connects her to the relation is jouissance, but not as
an element that is present to their awareness.
Question: It is in unconscious position.
Answer: Not quite. You do not necessarily need to take it and say “well, it is occupying an
unconscious position” it is enough to notice that goze, jouissance, enjoyment is outside the
signifier, and the symbolic order. And what we may say is that what links this person to this
situation is the tendency towards that enjoyment, the drive that leads to that enjoyment, without
that enjoyment being present.
We cannot argue that what keeps that person there is the enjoyment they register as the thing
that “they are at least obtaining”. In certain cases what you could say is that a particular type of
pleasure is that thing which is obtained. Now, the unconscious drive aims to satisfy itself in that
which is outside the signifier. It is that thing which is “not possessed”. There is a tendency towards
“it” before the circuit of the drive ruptures, and restarts again. To satisfy itself in that reproductive
rupture, but never “possessing” jouissance.
START HERE BEGIN 1:21:35MIN
What you may be able to obtain is the object of the demand, that is to say, pleasure. The logic of
the motion of the drive is converging towards jouissance. The latter situated outside the symbolic-
pact, outside the signifier, but only possible after entrance into the Other of language takes place
(via alienation (similar to a conjunction in formal logic: the “and” operator) and separation (similar
to the “or” operation in formla logic: See Carnedes.org)
What may keep you linked to that type of situation is the drive as its multiplier motion converges
towards satisfaction in non-coincidence with itself as an individuated entity that exists in time. But
the drive converges towards enjoyment, jouissance, short-circuit to reset. It does not “obtain”
jouissance. The unconscious identification with the fantasy that is governed by the logic of the
motion of the drive is what may keep you there.
1:22:12min Jose Saramago “Blindness”. You have two sets of blind people “the good blind people”
(moral, not enemies of humanity? I have only read “The Double” I thought it very good. I was
recommended “The Cave” because he used Marx the way science fiction writters use science)
And “the bad blind people”. The “bad ones” have food, and the “good ones” have women so they
trade (political economy). The owners of food approach them with an exchange “so many women
for so much food” (exchange ratios of commodities) since the owners of food, I am guessing, have
deprived the others of the means of producing food, they force the others to trade women, and
alienate them as exchangeable for the products of being able to farm land.
There is a section where the exchange has been agreed upon. And as the women go to be
exchanged one of them says “please God do not let me like it”. If during rape you experience the
unconscious drive towards enjoyment then you are lost, lacking autonomy, not because you will
obtain jouissance, but because that matheme functions as an engine that will allow for the
economy of exploitation to take place. Akin to receiving a wage I am guessing.
The problem is that in a moment of self-relating reflexivity she tells herself “I hope to God I will
not like it”, because from the ego-ideal position that she occupies it is registered, in identification
with that standard, as abhorrent: the issue of “being” less than commodities. That is to say she
finds an excessive degree of non-identity with the possibility of finding herself at the center of this
extent of exploitability where your autnomy of registering illegitimacy erased, and proceeding to
“like it”.
Reminding ourselves of what we have said. The unconscious drive orbits recursively around an
object. The whole point is to loop in this manner. But the moment of reaching it is the moment
when it cancels out the possibility of getting it.
My comment: remember the level of non-identity between the particular and the universal. The
non-identity between the proposition, and its place of inscription.
The capacity to discharge, the self-reproducing tendency towards discharge, is done if the
imaginary-ideal is able to be constructed: that is to say the capacity to obtain pleasure is through
the signifier.
You may “obtain” jouissance if you position yourself in a masochistic position, and you allow
someone to, via a fantasy scenario, go at you in a particular way. In that instance you would
“obtain” jouissance. But notice the paradox: it is a point that negates you so you may achive
orgasm.
My comment: But the orgasm is enabled by the imaginary ideal aka the unary trait, image of
illusory wholeness (remember motricity) signifying one-ness. Remember numbers, and letters
above. Quality (wholeness) quantity (individuation, particulars, etc)
In the moments of dismemberment, and fragmentation. And you may say “but this is pain” yes,
but before the fantasy scenario it was death-drive (pulsion de goze literally translated as
enjoyment drive)
My comment: For example, as in the Argentinian lecture on Kant avec Sade, Ricardo explains that
the Serial Killer sadist obtains, has, the status of a torturer. The victim is fragmented into
jouissance. Human right violations is jouissance. But in this instance there is no death-drive to
jouissance nor a fantasy scenario.
It is here where the fantasy serial killer scenario takes place. Jouissance is obtained outside the
signifier. But they will not trace that jouissance back to their impotence in satisfying the desire of
the other. They will try to infantilize the other: from lack of public education to erasing, and
stealing books. With the help of the Vatican proceed to rape kids of the producers: working class
not net-worthers.
The working class “obtains jouissance”. To obtain jouissance is equivalent to increasing the rate of
exploitation (40yrs, 24/7) and lowering standards of living, deaths in your family, torture, jails,
raping kids with Obama, B-Pitt, Jolie, and capital as media Trump.
1:26:23min
If you notice beginning from the $ position vectoring towards the code will be done through an
image in i(a) (i as an other) this image functions as the decoy of desire (an image of signifying-
illusory-wholeness with which you will identify)
(remember the mirror stage) If I experience, need, privation at all, it will be through this self-
relating-self-reflexive through the other of the image (promise of what I am not, or, could be) that
motivates me, it is one way of saying it, to be able to formulate a demand.
Ex: If you are interested in a person. You are not interested in intimately relating with the real of
that person bypassing the rest: her blood and white cells. The oscillating motion of her entrails.
You are interested in an imaginary-ideal that you have constructed of that particular person. You
have an ideal with which you have identified that enables orgasm, or, finding pleasure in other
ways. To the extent that such person answers, meets the standards of the imaginary-ideal, then
that person will arouse you. She will motivate you.
When you say “I really find them attractive” what you mean is that they are able to constantly,
over the total time of interaction, to fit the imaginary ideal (the snuff stalkers in KS: for example.
Because they victim is susceptible etc.)
Once again $ is possible to the extent that it is identified with an image that is the
particularization of object-a (a particular place of inscription. Or the subject as described by Zizek
in Sublime Object Of Ideology). This image will then be the object of my desire as it were.
I(a) to moi (the psychological “I”) vector. After identification that i(a) will retroactively construct
what we understand as the psychological “I” “Ego” that will proceed to construct a message-
demand. The latter will, in turn, retroactivize the Other.
My Comment: Notice this issue of imaginary ruptures in identity also applies to the “Admire me
for no reason” order. Signifiers like “Boy”, “Tool”, “Tic” etc.
1:28:36min
Rephrasing the section above
This is why we say that the need, white triangle, above the $ is mediated by the i(a) (image), once
again, to the extent that it is connected to object-a that allows me to go to the Other: code as
Other, where the message will retroactivize, the point where the “laws” reside. And in this graph
taking as a point of departure the point of imaginary-ideal with which I have identified the “le moi”
retroactivized with i(a), the psychological “I” which is the agency that will identified with that
enunciation, or, proposition at s(O), one sees oneself as being in need to, in the illusion of how
communication is experienced (the degree of egoic control, illusory control, over language. The
point at which you may say of yourself, or, the analyst “this is an illusory belief about one´s
relation of control/ownership over language”)
In the schema of Jakobson the one emitting the message sends a message to the recipient. One
sees oneself in need of producing the message (moves finger from (0) to s(O)). The message being
what we call “the signifier” of the Other, that is to say, the moment at which my message carries a
meaning.
And in the circuit of the bottom register you feel like “the owner” of the representation. Ex: you
get someone sending a message to someone else, full blown inside a fascination-hatred set. The
other person asks “Did you just send that” Answer: guff-waffs “Yeah, aha. Yeah, I did it”. B: “What?
Are you sure. Are you sure that you really took your time, and delivered that message. Are you
sure you can own what you said?” B: laughter but petering out sequence converging upon
realizing what they have done “Ahhh, yeah..yeah…ahhh…uhmmm”
That phrase “are you sure” refers to that “moi”. But here is the point from which all the problems
that we will have to deal with in the future will arise. Ok, so what is it that is taking place. Where is
the site where an issue may take place.
The problem arise, because the semi-circle moving from (O) to s(O) is going to retroactivize (O).
We are referring to stuff we were talking about in the first graph: the sanctioning of the message.
The sanctioning, or, not of the message refers to the composition of the message as well as the
object of satisfaction that we get with our message.
Ex: someone sends you a message with a smiley imoji you agree to it, censor it as approved, and
you send it the imoji ballerina. And everything seems to be going well. You both agree to meet.
But it tunrs out that it is a total disaster.
We will presuppose an extreme case, and let us say that even though it was a disaster you do like
it. You register as something you liked. You like it, but there is leftover that falls, a remainder that
prevents you from achieveing 1:1 fulfillment, and satisfaction. That remainder, that surplus, that
left-over unfragmented, and un-message-icize, not turned into a message, is what drops into the
i(a). As soon as (O) is retroactivized there is a remainder, and that heads to where i(a) is.
As you may see it is a place of inscription that will loop over, and over reconstructing itself every
time to enable the construction of a message. You have need, then (think of numbers) The image
as empty/quality/position then retroactivized in a particular message.
That remainder that lands on the i(a) has its origins on the “d”, of surplus, remainder, etc that is
above the (O) heads to the matheme of drive etc. Why? Because the “d” to the $◊D, where a
particular $◊a, will be produced will descend towards the s(O) so retroaction may take place into
(O), and only then the image, after produced in the unconscious may present itself as a place of
identification/inscription for that white delta that you see above $.
What we are trying to answer is what is the specific drive (articulated with the demand) that is the
cause/origin of the message expressed in a linguistic demand in the first register. It is this very
same drive, $◊D, that is outside the reach of introspection.
We know that $◊D does not have to coincide with the white delta above the $. It will simply be the
case that it does not have to coincide with it: precisely because it occupies an unconscious
position. As you will notice in the second register the signifier of the lack in the Other will be
produced. Remember that retroaction will not take place until the fantasy in the register above is
not produced and lodges itself in the s(O). Up until that moment that (O) is not retroactivized. It is
empty.
As has been explained in the lectures above it is at the point of s(O) that what you will say, but not
have meant is produced, the symptom, the lapsus, etc. Ex: you meet a girl have a conversation,
she is your object of desire, up until then answers to your imaginary-ideal etc, but when it comes
time to have sex, or, kiss, or, going out on a date after she said yes to your invitation everything is
disrupted. You become anxious, uncomfortable, something disrupts that very same thing that was
being constructed. You cannot tell where it comes from, but it is disrupted.
Yes, you get this paradox. You get to go out with whom you wanted you, but everything is
disrupted at the moment when you get “what you want”. Ex: the snuffers. After 10 yrs of not
paying attention to them since they have nothing to offer, and snuff torture they think that when
you see what is it that they have to say they notice there is no tic, or, unattractive victim, or, they
fail at fulfilling their desire. They begin to lose it. Exchange million of fans for attempting to do the
impossible like positioning themselves as the standards of desirability, because they have not
fulfilled the desire of the other in any minimal social way etc. Anxiety sets in “What do I do if the
fantasy I know to be false is in fact registered as false” they proceed to torture, burn your eyes,
hammer above your head with electrical drills. Insist that they know how to write prose, or, music.
Why wont you at least re-rank them as desirable Ameicans etc.
After that moment they may reflect and ask themselves “But what happened. I organized the
entire scenario. I was happy. I knew they were isolated, and were being brutalized. I got
biometrical data, and stole everything they wrote, and created. I know how they think. I can even
be more leftists than they are. My left-gobbelian friends are the ones he sees as God, he does not
believe in equality, they like me. The whole thing was planned to the “t”. They have no one. We
have “no-body-touches-it”. They are just dreams. The kind I like. The kind that cannot defend
themselves against 10 countries. I am God. It was all concretely, and empirically prepared”
It can be anxiety, or, they may begin to be taken by the signifier and start to see things in their
heads, or, they may begin to develop symptoms like feeling as if an organ was snatched out of
them. They cannot breath “Why is this happening. I am God, and God has all the friends in the
world. I laugh, they don’t. People applaud me. I have Oscars, and Grammys. Why is this happening
now. Right now. God does not need this right now”
What is the problem in this instance. The problem is that this white delta we see above $, caused
by the $◊D, we would register something as its opposite. If it was 4 th dimenasional then it would
appear to us as two dimensional.
The sequence we have then it: $◊D causes the $ the $ through its need addresses, or, alienates
into the Other to formulate a demand, and proceed to produce a message that contains within
itselself what is “raining” (generated) from above. It is here when you experience that moment
when you, as Hegel put it, aim to say one thing and mean another thing. Or you forget to say it, or
you become anxious.
START BEGIN HERE 1:38:00MIN
“We do not know what we say” in his attempt to delineate at what point the unconscious begins
to manifest itself as unconscious Lacan need to figure out where exactly in what we say this entity
manifests itself. Whenever a message is formulated there is a part of that message which is
foundational, but we totally are unaware of: the fantasy as its foundation constructed in the
register above.
We will begin to talk about fantasy $◊a: on the 2 nd register below the signifier in the lack of the
other.
If you notice there is a looping, circular relation, between the matheme $◊D and the signifier in
the lack in the Other S(O). And the latter is very similar to the circuit of the drive.
The way to read it is: delta white towards goal (goal is the “a”) moving towards the arrow on the
left. Not stop there continue towards the lightbulb leftward most edge move up towards “a”, and
then descend back to loop until you reach “rim” and then it achives satisfaction (identity) on itself,
but this means drive = drive = syntax error as satisfying itself, and the logic of its reproductive
motion.
[Asansi draw the cirtcle: “d” to $◊D, S(O) then sexuation formulae writing (a fantasy just like the
message is written on the first register) retroactivizing $◊D moving down to “d” again, and creating
the vector “d”---------$◊a, or,
$◊a ----------- “d”. And going up again to S(O) retroactivizing the $◊D and looping again.] ϕ
In the different set of organized linguistics act I get to I get the feeling that I am repeating
something. Ex: let us take masochism. Masochists don’t do a masochist experience just once. They
always seek to organize their access to enjoyment by repeating the same fantasy scenario.
Masochism is defined by the insistence, looping, for a masochist experience. Like the demand that
is outside one´s will. Sometimes you identify with it, others you cannot: they are symptomatic.
This means that when out of the drive in the upper register a signifier is produced, S(O), that is of
the lacking other. That is to say a signifier that is not positively sanction, welcome into, the Other
of language in the bottom register.
The looping circuitry designated by ϕ is what Freud, and Lacan will call the “automatism” or
“principle” of repetition. If we have an “automatism” and “repetition” it is because the drive $◊D
insists. Why does it reproduce itself in a looping manner?
Because the temporal existence of the drive only finds satisfaction on itself: drive = drive, but the
latter is a generative contradiction. The second term is not a particular, but a universal x = x, drive
= drive, 0 = 0, the combustive, aufebunging contradiction spakles it into motion again, and only
heads towards the same syntax error point again.
This modality of looping is indicative of a profound lack of satisfaction. Once the drive encounter
the “in-itself” as its object it has ceased to find it. What it encounters is a point of non-identity.
The drive will not be exhausted if you reach organism. You cannot posses its object of satisfaction,
and take it with out. Notice that the drive may be active on any setting: in your bedroom, hotel
rooms, mountains, the top of the Eiffel tower etc.
The circuitry of the drive he specified, with all the variables, depends on its temporal existence on
non-coincidence to loop itself. It insists. The signifier of the lacking Other addresses the drive, $◊D,
yet drive does not answer, and hence the looping towards it again.
Ex: let us take the case of the person that walks down the streets Madrid saying “St Elizabeth
mother of God” insistently, and have it to repeat it over, and over as if the first 10 times had not
been enough. That moment of non-identity that leads back to repeating it. Encountering the real
that resists symbolization: that cannot be absolutized regardless how many times you insist this
infinite set must fit within a particular number.
Ex: you sound like: Gospel, R&B, Vzlan traditional music from the plains, traditional music from the
plains of the States, Folk, Techno, jangly blues etc. Everything except rock. Once they go to
sessions, and session is exactly what it says, sessions for the precipitably, they encounter the
moment of non-identity, and produce a fantasy formation. But why the insistence when all the
warnings, explicit detailed circuitry is given, etc are given. The signifier is unconscious. It does not
matter that one tells them as he explained in “Lacan For Everyone”, “Lacan para Multitudes”
But no, why always with the same sig whenever they encounter this: “not-us”, “something”, “not-
good”. And not only that, the deposit of collective attention of millions is irrelevant, they will
exchange it for a lie from the victim. It is the victims that must censor their fantasy over, and over.
It is irrelevant they may get together, and laugh about it, and get applauded globally. It all goes to
the bin in exchange for this one lie.
All that happens within the circuit described. Why does the drive insist? Because the drive is not
constructed via the object.
Again, the drive repeats itself it never finds itself in the object. Example in mythology why does
Zeus chases after daphne? Because it is a type of todestrieb insistence. He never finds Daphne?
Why? Because the drive never finds the object. The latter is a constant in mythology. How the
personification of the drive never finds the object.
Let us take the case of exploited people: Why does the American, Israeli, British, Venezuelan,
Japanese, Korean, Thai, Singapurese, Indonesian etc never find “America, Korea, England….”,
because they cannot find it in the logic of their political practice. The object “America” etc is just a
way in which the drive will encounter itself in non-identity with itself. The logic of their political
practice is one of destroying bonds of optimal sociability, non-incestuality. Hence they never find
the object in concrete reality. In empirical reality.
The net-worther? Why does he/she never encounter themselves concretely in social reality? Why
is it that they never find themselves as the “super-meta-producer”, because it is an object of
fantasy that simply allows for the todestrieb of exploitation out of existence to continue.
What about Zeus? Why is he always represented as having sex with anyone, and anything all the
time? His lust, and cravings have no end. In Lacanese we would say his drive is endless.
What is the output of the circuit of the drive? The fantasy, ghost, fantasme, etc. The fantasy is the
logical articulation that allows from the stringing between the drive, matheme of drive, and the
signifier of the lacking other.
This fantasy has the characteristics of the signifier we specified above: it is the output that bears
an image, or, (inclusive?) phrase that becomes the matrix, and lipogram
“A lipogram is a kind of constrained writing or word game consisting of writing paragraphs or

longer works in which a particular letter or group of letters is avoided. Extended Ancient Greek
texts avoiding the letter sigma are the earliest examples of lipograms.”
Of the way the subject behaves. Reading the formula for fantasy: barred subject related with
object-a. In formal logic it is read “If it is the case the signifier bars the subject then it is possible
that object a may appear” as in the “I as an Other” or a-------a´ vector. If delta is the sig then it
couls be the case that self-reflexively this barred unconscious subject may identify with an object
of desire. If there is a gap then it is possible for there to be desire, or, object of desire.
But notice this is an unconscious fantasy. An unconscious mode of identification. The object-a
occupying an unconscious position. Object-a in unconscious position is that the fantasme
produces.
This other image, “a”, hides, veils. It is that thing towards which I vector as a subject (negativized
instance). It is the negation of the negation of the Lacanian subject. See copy of Zizeks page.
What is the link between the formula for fantasy in the upper register $◊a. and the moi-------i(a)
vector in the conscious register? In the latter vector resides the production of images (imgos). We
can say that we are conscious of these set of images.
In the moment when we meet someone, and are aroused into desire (now understanding the
extent of concept desire) what is it that one proceeds to do? You tell me?
Answer: we proceed to fantasize.
Yes, to fantasize (remember the construction of the imaginary-ideal) these types of fantasies are
of the day-dreaming variety. Anything from someone that captures your erotic attention, to a job
we would like to the kind of skills you would like to develop, and projects you would like to work
on.
Day-dreaming is the reflection of what takes place, or, is produced in the upper register: $◊a. After
the fantasy is produced unconsciously , and we register its outcome in the bottom register in the
vector moi --------- i(a).
BEGIN HERE CONTINUE 1:59:32MIN
At the vector of the image. We find object – a represented at the conscious register, and, where it
is generated, at the unconscious register. Generated after the person asks “now that I register
symbolic castration, the sanctioning other, how do I relate to mortality. To that which I must
renounce, and cease to be to appear as a social subject?”
Jacques-Alain Miller who is a philosopher, and psychoanalyst (he is Lacans official editor, and
worked with him, selected by him, to edit his seminars) explains: patients enter as a symptom, and
come out at the end of analysis as fantasme, ghosts, fantasma, fantasy.
My comment: Remember how Lacanian formal algebra is read in formal logic: $◊a = “If it is the
case the divided subject is true then it is possible that (self-reflixive split identification with an
other: I as an other) object of desire, or, object-a. If it is the case the subject is alienated in the
signifier it is possible that we may get a a------a´ vector.
The person enters with a symptom, manages to position him/herself in a subjective ethical
position, register the fantasmatic limits of the degree of unconscious identification with an
ungrounded fantasy, and makes a decision of how he is to identify, and relate at that place of
inscription. At that level of inscription, unconscious, he cannot be told by the analyst how to
identify: it would not be ethical. After he makes a decision he will come out with a fantasme $◊a
that delivers them from the symptom.
My comment: This is sort of true. Although what happens in analysis is that you register, at a
particular point of singularity, the ungrounded nature of your identification with an unconscious
fantasy. You do not detect the fantasy in all its positive details. You manage to detect its
ungrounded principle, the fantasy, and as soon as you do it dissolves. After that you have to make
a decision, and that new mode of identification, that decision, will be the fantasme.
In Lacan the fantasme as a solution can, and cannot be found, but for Miller is the solution.
My comment: People make the same observation about Freud. It is because those are scientific
endavours. It is no different than physics to economics changing, and coming up with new answers
to systemic, as well as new problems. The same for medicine etc.
For Lacan the fantasme (i(a) is the support (of alienating symbolic identification) of the subject
(once barred) to ground the possibility of its concrete, empirical, existence.
This leads to a number of curious things. One of the first things that I would like to point out is that
we cannot think of the bottom register as falsehoods, and the upper register as truthful (dream-
logic formations) given that the signifier is empty aka ungrounded fantasy: hence the formulas of
sexuation that construct the fantasies.
Even though there is a gap between the two registers the way they co-construct one another, the
way they are communicating with each other is plain to see.
SEXUATION FORMULAS ABOVE

One of the clearest examples of the relation between the two is $◊a (fantasy: written linguistic) as
output of the upper register, and i(a) image of the fantasme.
This division, cut, gap, that exists between the conscious, and the unconscious register (delineating
what is it that “is” the unconscious) is something that can be developed, and studied from the
point of view of the clinic, and also for the logic of our everyday life (Freud´s “Psychopathologies of
Everyday Life).
The nature of what we are looking (let us take the example of the clinic) at is that of two register
that are different: one of which we are conscious, and of another of which we simply cannot be
conscious (but that nevertheless find a way to communicate with each other) we notice that the
patient might reach a position, an ethical subject position, where patient may identify himself,
may support himself, with his structural predisposition towards the fantasme as a particular
solution to his symptom,
The object-a of the upper register, and the object – a of the bottom register do not coincide. They
are not the same object. It is like saying there is a 1:1 symmetry isomorphic relation between
consciousness, and that which is out of its reach. They are different dimensions of the same
object.
It is similar to the signifier of the lack in the other. In S(O) we find the convergence between two
elements: a “want to say” that is unconscious, and a “to say” (demand” that belongs to the
register of consciousness. Remember the principle we had outlined above, now in more detail,
“We do not know what it is that we want to say”
The later expression simply means that there is a cut, a division, between the conscious, and
unconscious register. There is a point where “We do not know what it is that we want to say” or
“We do not know what we are saying” (remember how s(O) is the site of disruption, and lapsus
etc)
If there was the most absolute of ruptures between both registers then analysis would not be
possible. Analysis, once under transference, may begin to operate once the s(O) lays out a set of
symptomatic expressions to later see to what fundamental fantasy they lead, or, said expressions
are steming from.
The vector moi (psychological “I”) --------- i(a) is a necessary self-reflexive way of constructing
identification. In, and of itself is not bad. They correspond to the crucial, and foundational modes
of identification for any, I repeat any, type of structure.
There are moments when the articulation between the register of the drive, and the dimension of
the psychological “I” aka le moi and the image articulated with other i(a) does become a problem.
It is at this point where we would begin to enter into the catalogue of the pathologies that become
cases in analysis: neurotical modalities of anxieties, obsessive modes of neurosis, psychosis,
schidzophrenia, ocd, we would enter that umbral of psychological illnesses. At one point or
another all of us experience some of them if only for the fact that we are capable of experiencing
anxiety (narcissistic injuries, and ruptures etc). The latter set of pathologies are explained by the
graph we have been studying. The idea is to understand the circuitry of the pathological
automatism, symptomatic circuit, at the level of pathologies as presented in analysis.
Ex: Let us take the example of obsessive neurosis. The person detects a demand, registers an
insistent demand, that he must wash his hands for any motive, or, in other words for no motive at
all. He, or, she cannot detect the origin of this insistent demand, what causes it, but they do
experience a type of a----a´ rupture. It could be with attempting to formulate a phrase, or, repeat
the same phrase over, and over again.
For the serial killer of Kant avec Sade something of the same register happens. They need to be
“American” but the way they will accomplish this will be to organize themselves as a group (in
concrete reality: aka investing labor power hours) around a particular sublime object: everyone,
or, tone “accent” (leading to fragmentation), tone skin, exploited working class at the edge of
existence, muslim this, and muslim that, jew this, and that and the other, homosexual,
transgender, the other son, or, daughter, someones cousin etc.
Once they go after the selected target they will not have achived moi-----i(a) social identity as
“Americans” it will remain forever out of their reach. Even to present themselves as standard of
sociability in any human society will not be possible.
The logic of their “social” “political” practice is guided by an unconscious drive-demand that they
must exploit the other out of existence. They do not know why. As you have seen with series that
converge towards: “reasons of state”, “obey”, “tone”, “tool”, “black face”, “did you know the color
of the skin you look at everyday is the color of the skin you look at everyday” “tool: you are my
victim. I am a lazy leech. Have not developed any loser working class skills. But you have. Hence
you are not attractive. What societal group could be constructed with you?”
All the latter expressions are dream-logic black-humor-at-best fantasies expressions of exploiters
attempting to reconstitute the moi -------- i(a). They are not trivial. These fantasies organize the
concrete, cannot live without, sense of identity “American” aka “desirable, societal, contributor,
part of a group of mutual aid internally and world wide: balance of payments” etc. But the greater
the rate of exploitation, of incestual violence, and the modes of transmission the further removed
they will, concretely, be from it.
Hence the impossibility to present themselves as standards of sociability, minimal, much less
“diss” aka “Is it not the case that in all possible measures of desirability it is the case that I am the
standard of what you want to be: concretely, empirically.” Etc. They do not contribute minimally,
and much less at the level of state of the art.
In concrete/empirical reality they cannot encounter themselves in the object of their labor: from
relations of production (the workplace) to kinship relations (at home) to communal relations: from
the University to romantic relations etc. Hence empirical reality will disrupt the, for example, net-
worther-fantasy, or, the really sexually desirable Vatical-artist rapist of unconscious unwilling
victims etc.
This leads to an imaginary rupture moi------- i(a). The object must be constructed in the second
register, unconsciously, and the latter unconscious identification with said fantasy “will guide
them” as to how to resolve the division within themselves.
In the case of obsessive neurosis empirical reality does not confirm the existence of a real threat,
alarm, of being infected. Yet, there is a rupture at the level of the vector, and the unconscious
fantasy that will resolve their split, the one that will insist in todestrieb form, will “guide” them:
wash your hand for no reason, and then because there are less reasons, and then because there is
clearly not a reason.
With perverse at serial killer level it is almost the opposite: empirical reality denies the fantasy,
and they reject the registration of the truth they had a chance to have access to. They assert
themselves as the “phallus of the mOther” it cannot be the case that they are that impotent,
limited, barren etc.
In either case it does not matter how deeply, and committedly, you unconsciously identify with the
demand of the drive: the fantasmatic unconscious formation. The more you follow it the less
secure you are. Because it is an unconscious fantasy. An unconscious fantasy, something that does
not exist, cannot be addressed in empirical, concrete, reality. It simply does not exist. A thing that
does not exist, a fantasy, does not have a great deal of insight on the nature of empirical reality.
Taking back the case of OCD and washing ones hands. We could say that the person suffering from
this that in their relation to the other i(a) and the Other of the second register the Other
represented by the drive: there is an attempt by the analysand to go beyond the Other.
That is to say in the death-drive insistence what the logic of their practice attempts to bring forth,
into concrete reality, is to attain 1:1 identity with the fantasmatic formation that is constructed,
and unconsciously identified with in the second register, and appears in the first register. The
unconscious fantasy is constructed in the second register, and what appears in the conscious
register is this imperative to obey the ungrounded “promise” as it were.
In the case of the serial-killer is much clear: trying to accomplish the fantasy of “being American”
with the instructions of an unconscious fantasy that leads of a set of practices that will negate the
fantasy. And the more they try the bigger will be the narcissistic injury they will undergo. As well
as the degree of separation from the object of desire “I wish I could be a domesticated human”.
The same here, but as they like to put it, very much differently, the logic of their inter-subjective
practice is to further allow them to attain a 1:1 relation with the fantasy formation: Americall, All-
American, Gods, courage, realistic, empirical, not “concrete it irks me: I…..dont….know….Why! I
don’t. I register it as “Why?!”, and that is it. Is is not clear that after the experience of anxiety slices
me the way a butcher´s knife unkindly encounters the muscles attached to a corpse of what used
to be something breathing manages to, guide me to where I must vector, in practice, to meet my
true self? It feels real. It bangs real. I am there, in being, when I go ´Noooooo! Not me again´” etc.
Yes, the ideal is to find identity with an other that fully completes, and exhausts your desire so
plentifully that you achieve an impossible wholeness, or, fullness. It satisfies you away from
mortality. This is what is fantasmatic about the death-drive´s demand.
The idea is that the Other of the drive if followed, the unconscious fantasy, will be able to fulfill its
promise if you only continue to identify with it, and obey it. Fulfill its promise in concrete reality: in
empirical terms. It is to work your way, in practice, until you find the unconscious fantasy
awainting for you in reality. The sysyphus thing. An interesting myth.
This graph represents the constellation of the psyche (psiquismo) of the subject. Out of it we will
be able to obtain a number of different structures “personalities”. And with it the corresponding
pathologies to each one.
Remember this is an introduction to the graph of desire. We still have to give a more detailed
account of jouisscance, castration, signifier, voice.
The fundamental fantasy must always be there since it sustains the structure of the drive. It is only
in pathological cases where you need to traverse the fantasy. When we talk about traversing the
fantasy we are talking about unconscious identification with a formation that leads to pathologies
that compel the person to ask for analysis.
Without an unconscious we would not be desiring subjects. If the circuit between the $◊D, and the
S(O) were not there, then “d” of desire failed to be produced as a remainder, and our modality of
having to alienated in the Other to make demands would not be present. This would imply a
degree of unwelcome lethality.
2:13:36min The key point in the conversation about “traversing the fantasy” is how to reach to
point of reaching that unconscious fantasy, foundational formation, that has become the answer
that allows the subject (within this configuration) know what it is that the Other asks of him. It is
the answer to castration. It is a subjective answer to the censoring nature of what enables the
entrance to the symbolic social subject.
Taking a case beyond raising the kid. In everyday life. If you approach someone you like, and go
out of dates etc. But any of you still manages to, sincerely,
(I am not talking about serial killers into child snuff, and infantilizing victims of pentagon Vatican
rape “realistic” type people)
Feel anxious as to what you mean for the other: “What does she/he really want” this very
concrete anxiety that arises as to who am I for the other: the one that fulfills, or, is castrated in
his/her capacity to fulfill their desire. Then you come up with a fantasy answer that will guide you
“Ohhh, it must be this”, or, “If they did this then it probably means that they want that so I will
work to identify, and become that for them so I may deliver it to them” etc.
The Che Vuoui? Means “What does he/she want?” Remember this graph is constantly looping
itself into the temporal motion of its reproducibility. And problems arise when in the construction
of set interrelated elements there is a short-circuit somewhere. A rupture at certain points.
2:16:05min Question: Are women inherently masochists in Lacan?
Answer: No, I have said that “it is possible that” (modal logic), but you cannot situate “The”
woman in a masochist position. People whose fundamental algebraic-grammatical fantasy is of a
“feminine” logic variety do have to access jouissance solely via masochism.
Freud, while dealing with pathologies and attempting to isolate the possible cures, did reach a
point in his theorizing where the masculine subject appeared to be in an “active” position, and
feminine subjects in “passive” positions. The masculine subject as Sadist, and the feminine subject
as occupying a masochist position
My comment: Easy to see that “there is no such thing as ´the´ woman is very clear from the cases.
I have presented of genocidal psychopaths. From Thatcher to Clinton, Rice, Donors: Portman, J.
Lawrence, Foster, Chastein, Gina Haskell, etc.
Lacan makes a substantive modification, or, advances as one normally does the theory with
regards to pathologies. He does not position males as active, and women as passive.
In this text on the drive, Seminar 11: 4 fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis, He writes about
something that feminism does not want to see, and refuses to even register by the way. The
problem is that they simply do not read him, and if you refuse to read him, then you are simply
not going to find out about it.
In that text he asserts “Every drive is active”. Freud himself explains that the drive is a “constant
force”, or, “a force in a state of constant motion”. If this is so then it is erroneous to say “there is a
constant force that is active, and another one that is passive”
Lacan points out that what you find in Freud´s writings is not that “man” is the one that sees, and
the “woman” is the one that “is seen”. What you find in his works is that “men” proceed to fixate
their attention, look, upon the other, and women position themselves to be seen. The latter is a
very different situation.
It is not “to see” and “to be seen”. It is “to see” and “to make oneself be seen”
Hence the opposition is not between an active, and a passive position. But rather between an
“active” position whose self-presentation is that of “being active”, and an active position that
presents itself as a “passive position”.
The important thing here, in the case of domestic violence (violencia de genero), is that you may
find women, or, men that have no objective reason to keep themselves in that situation: the
reason cannot be found anywhere (the redeemability of it etc), and the only thing that keeps them
there is an unconscious identification with a specific type of fantasy.
And it is important to detect cases that meet that criteria if you are to help at all. If you dismiss it
from the outset then you will be in no position to help: your position about women will be
ideological hence of no use.
My comment: Domestic violence is an issue. If it is a relevant issue then it will be an empirical

issue. A registerable issue in terms of frequency, and volume. Locations types of relations etc. A
great deal of economic resource must be gathered to address it. From not isolating the victims all
the way to medical care. The latter requires an opposition to capitalism. The logic of capital much
less its neoliberal forms are ways that will provide you with material resources to address them.
And if the material resources are not there then you will not be there to help them in any
substantive way with the degree of constant urgency with which they insist this must be
addressed. If this is not addressed, in political action, not “raise awareness” to encounter oneself
with less, and less resources when it comes time to do something as the years go by. As in the case
of my family, and that of others. It just becomes as Melanie Klein´s crew called it “The Shock
Doctrine”: of which they are a part.
Upper register: fantasy representing the logical articulation between the drive $◊D, and the
signifier of the lacking other S(O). If analysis helps at all is to contribute towards the
understanding, of what Hegel called: phenomena as phenomena, that fantasy is in fact a fantasy.
The fantasy stops having effects when they individual no longer has to “obey” because “obey” only
to find themselves in a blind-alley, because they agreed, or, were asphyxiated into obeying.

250pages Complete Asasi 5 DAYS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

250pages Complete Asasi 5 DAYS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asansi Lacan on Desire 1

Picture of Sausserian Sign.

39:40min The centrality of language, and pathologies: Afasia etc.

1:16:10min The first Other is language itself

Seminar 1 “Lo real o lo que es percibido como tal es lo se resiste, absolutamente, a la

Kinda related to answering the Che Vuoi?

F (S….S´) Sα Ξ S (-) (s)

1:14:43min Metaphor formula.

After that questions

We have attempted to go through a synchronic explanation

Aphasia is an impairment of language, affecting the production or comprehension of speech and

53: 47min Next Section.

print [noun] a mark made by pressure

1. a linguistic unit consisting of a set of linguistic forms (phonemes, words, or phrases)

CONTINUE 1:1845MIN BEGIN HERE

In his seminar on Identification (1961-62), Lacan used Saussure's linguistics, to compare

A girl asks a question.

That is to say the minimum of symbolization, this essential linguistic-computational operation,

1:30:45min Question: not at all audible.

Question: What about the concept of “star”?

This primordial significance of the signifier, in unconscious position, alienated in it (similar to

Signifying image, or, empty image, word, and action: to act.

BEGIN WITH 1:47:01MIN

Jump to navigation Jump to search

In linguistics, a syntagma is an elementary constituent segment within a text. Such a

At the lexical level, syntagmatic structure in a language is the combination of words

Syntagmatic structure is often contrasted with paradigmatic structure. In semiotics,

Kant Avec Sade: Intro as Interlude. Personifications of Zeitgeist:

Next Example: Model wearing a “Fuck What They Think”

0 at empty, then signification, retroactivizing empty initial position.

Towards the bottom of the graph below +

We see once again, despejando terms, I(A)

Ex: x = 2y +3. Despejar the “y” or solve for “y”

Substract 3 from both sides

Divide 2 on both sides

41:07 BEGIN HERE

Where Hegel speaks of a desire in an idealistic/mental/”spiritual” sense Lacan, and Freud do so in

Summarizing it in this way has the advantage of providing us with a mediation

BEGIN HERE 58:50MIN

My comment: the way it circulates between both.

BEGIN HERE 1:57:22min

Ivan Gil Muñoz

Ivan Gil Muñoz

Time 1 Graeber-------Victim Time 2

Hence he will proceed to deliver a set of narcissistic injuries in return,

In order to do so he must strategize. To be able to do so he must concentrate

The set of operations they needed in order to reconstitute themselves into

Ok so those are the set of matematico-linguistic operations needed to

BEGIN HERE 3:34MIN

If you remember this graph

Adelmo Marcos Rossi

- Hello, Helen Caldwell?

- This is the Axe.

- Look, Machado, if Capitu cheated on Bentinho, it's all Bentinho's fault.

- Do you cheat on your husband?

- Cheating, and it's his fault.

- Was that my mistake in Dom Casmurro?

From “An Introductory Dictionary Of Lacanian Psychoanalysis”

“Also…” Relate to drive in self-relating recursive negativity in Asansi.

Guy Debord “Panergyc” page 9.

Ex: Paquin loon friend:

her desirable, because in practice she would prove incapable of satisfying my

Today Carolinefullcolor, a member of “the left”, wants to show you this:

Dylan´s entry for object-a later defined as object-cause