Mariano - 08/11/00 14:58:53 EDT
FBC,I think that cause for women , is related to the demand of love. In this sence, J. A. Miller sais: men are closer to perversion, women are closer to erotomaniac.

FBC, i prefer to don't name them as "a" "she", they are very singular, diverse, can't be defined as a uniforme set. they are not gods, but may have an strange "jouissance" (kind of very intence pleasure)with god. (seminaire 21). But i think it is clear Terry is causing here a lot of male messages with her strange, hermethic, femenine messagges. And the funniest is that she is exactly just a signifier made of bits.

FBC - 08/11/00 13:41:49 EDT
So she is God???

k - 08/10/00 17:55:57 EDT
woman don't need no cause, because she don't exist pas. at least not as a phenomenon. she's really just a question, one for speculative thought, not theory proper. reason can inquire after her, but she is not avaible to the understanding.

FBC - 08/10/00 16:50:01 EDT
But what is the cause of a woman?

Terry1 - 08/10/00 16:09:16 EDT
'A woman is the cause of a man'

FBC - 08/09/00 09:50:48 EDT
Universal truths are, I think, fantasies about the real as it appears in the symbolic. Any search for universal tryth begins in the symbolic, in a question about a likeness between two or more things. We wonder; "what is it that inheres in both entities. The answer of course is that they both share in the Real (maybe some kind of Spinozan substance). Of course conciousness can not really sink belof the surface of the real because it emerges from this Real, for the same reason that a computer can not model itself fully. The alternative is to try to rise above the surface in a fantasmic construction. Philosophical theories such as those of Spinoza and Kant, or any philosophical paradigm, can not help but be fantasies about the thing in itself for to say that the Real is foreclosed is really no different than saying that the thing in itself is always already there. This is the reason that being present at one's own conception is such an important fantasy, because we are always trying to think about the origin of our being, the cause, from within the horisons of that being. All theories ore fantasies, unavoidable fantasies, becasue if we want to know the truth about some particular then we need to know what its foundation is which takes us back to the universal. It is the classic situation of drawing together outside of our selves into a signifier which represents us. We err when we believe the word to be the thing named, we err worse when, knowing this, we speak as if speaking were impossible.

k - 08/08/00 15:33:27 EDT
the problem is, according to hegel, that as soon as we posit a particular by using the deictic term "this", we immediately perceive the universality of such judgement: all of this and nothing outside it; and, further, each of "those" is also a "this". No sooner do we indicate a presence deictically than that very singular presence, through a logical short-circuit, becomes caught up in a universe of inner relations and a world of outer references, the deixic.

Mariano - 08/08/00 14:34:23 EDT
I'm agree with you, FBC, that "particular" truth belongs to the realm of fantasy. And it is a good idea,it sugest me a kind of Hegelian- Lacanian thought: "particular" truths as incarnations of the "universals" into fantasy.

FBC - 08/08/00 09:19:59 EDT
Universal truth, particular truth. Is this the difference between factual truth and existential truth: The cat is on the mat, does this statement mean something about the way things actually are or simply the way they appear to me. If it is trye that a "woman" wants particular truths this seems to me to mean that she wants not the truth that one knows but the truth which one is. Is there really another kind? Is universal truth something in the realm of "fantasy"? If so, is that a universal truth. If one insists that the difference, or at least a difference between man and woman is that he wants universals while she wants specifics than the question about what a woman wantsis a call for universals, what a woman wants is specifics. The question is answered. Perhaps the real question is not what a woman wants, (she wants particulars) but rather "What exactly IS a particular". If we could know that we would know what a woman wants, and what a philosopher wants.

- 08/07/00 18:01:01 EDT
Lacanian,by the way, are you from Argentine?

Terry: A man can gives truth to a woman, but a universal truth. The problem is that women are interested in "particular", "singular", truth. Maybe the diference lies between the truth of science and the truth of art. Of course, this "clear" distinction that i propose, will never satisfie a woman.

Earling - 08/04/00 13:03:22 EDT
Could anybody give me a hand by telling what the LAMELLE myth in greek mythology is about? I have a vague idea about something that escapes the body at the moment of birth, and therefore related to a first gap or fault implied by sexuation. But I would rather like to know how the original story goes. Thanks (this is a first entry, and I don't relly know how the forum works. My email is
egarvie@copetel.com.ar

lacanian - 08/04/00 00:37:31 EDT
Do somebody know about psychoalalysts that had been analyzed themselves following the lacanian analysis, will do clinical practice in NC. I am new in this country and would like information about this particular. I will appreciate if somebody could help me.

Terry1 - 08/03/00 15:29:25 EDT
A woman's partner is solitide. A man can never give a woman what she wants. What a woman wants is truth. Women are the 'not one' a woman's life is art.

Mariano - 07/31/00 18:36:28 EDT
Terry, I guess you must be specialized on Weber works. I consider that your comments about him are very interesting.

Terry 1 - 07/31/00 15:41:16 EDT
The problem for Weber was: 'What caused social change?' In some senses he followed Kant with the Goliath reality.....' However Weber believed that class did exist and it was : 'Where you found yourself. Class situation is market situation'. If an individual has the cultural skills that are required at any given point in history, at a given social moment, they can change their class situation.
Status and honour are engines of social movement. The pursuit of honour creates social movement and complexity. The pursuit of status also creates social movement.
For Weber the Protestant work ethic was the cause of the development of capitalism. He cites the development of Calvanism as the direct cause. In his book: 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism' he demonstrated the emerging evolution of capitalism in parts of Germany and the UK. Weber asked : Why didn't capitalism develop in older cultures such as India or China?...His answer is alluded to by The Protestant Spirit......which was developed in monastrys in England and Germany. Monks sold wool but could not spend this money. They were pledged to an ascetic life. This spirit much like the Lacanian spirit left the monastrys and circulated among the populations of England and Germany. The doctrine of predestination is importamt for understanding capitalism's development. A Calvanist ( Mrs Thatcher a recent Prime Minister in UK is a Calvanist. ) believed that all work was done for the glory of God. If a person became wealthy this was a SIGN that they were one of the ELECTED. Calvanists believed that only the elected would go to heaven. Nobody new who were the elected but if money was made it could not be spent. It was still necessary to live an ascetic life.
Weber's work can also be applied to cultural phenomen. For instance suicide. Weber believed that Calvanism liberated the phsyche much like Bach did with his music. For Weber ( and Durkheim) ALL human beings need constraint. It is constraint or a limit point that enables a human being to function. (Like Lacan's castrating law of language or law of the father). Suicide he believed is not an individual act ( some Lacanians believe that suicide is the only true moral act)it is a social phenomenon caused by the over or under integration into society of the individual. When an individual is over integrated ( Japanese kamikazi pilots in the 2nd WW) they will have a tendency to suicide. When an individual is under integrated into a sociecty they will have a tendency to suicide. In Catholic countries suicide is rare or unheard of ( ALL catholics are integrated into a family) Lacan was brought up a catholic. In Protestant countries suicide is stable and rising slightly because according to Weber the psyche has been liberated and has freed itself from constraint. A psyche that has no limits or constraints has a tendancy to morbidity of death.

- 07/31/00 13:03:26 EDT
I'm agree with that idea of the relations between lacan and Weber in concerning to the "real". But anyway, this idea of unknowledged real is not present in every knoledge area nowadays? .
Another point in common betwen Lacan and Weber: both of them share the asumption that reality were even more complex than theirs theorical ancestors thought. In a sence, they implied a kind of complex aproach to their disciplines. I think they tended to challenge the bipolar, or dialectic fraims od thought. They proposed a kind of "poli-lectical" frame. I'm refering , for example, to the operation of adding the cultural aspect as a causative of social processes in Weber, or the trinarization of the subject model (simbolic , real , imaginary)in Lacan. In Lacan works is very clear the general asumption that reality is more complex than freudians had thought, but it is more radical, lacan considers reality is even more complex than any frame that he could develop about it.
In theese lear sences i consider taht we could read them as precursors of the complex aproach in sciences. well, i'm not sure, i just was trying to share an idea.

Frank - 07/26/00 20:58:42 EDT
I think this intensive/extensive infinity of Weber's is a lot like the Lacanian Real.
That is to say, it is an ore from which we distil/refine theories (visions" of that Real.
Reality in the Lacanian sense on the other hand would represent the symbolic field gathered around these theories. This (X) is true if and only if the vision which is constituted by a certain (Y) is true. It becomes religion when we fail to understand the theory as distilled "from" the Weberian "extensive/intessive infinite" and begin to believe that the former is the same as the latter, the theory is what is real, the conceptualization of the thing being mistaken for the "thing in itself" as Kant would have it. I have to question the statement that Weber means nothing to Lacan. Does this mean that one paradigm, the Weberian, can not be viewed in the framework of the other, the Lacanian?
What one thing has to do with the other, what all things in fact have to do with one another can be thought in at least two ways.
First, both Lacan and Weber point to a hyyper-reality which is in no way accessable and
by pointing this out state that any theory is in some sense a scaled down model of something with infinite, or at least appearently infinite proportions. The second and perhaps more important way in which the two theories (and every thing else) have EVERYTHING to do with one another is this; If I know about the Weberian and Lacanian paradigms and any others I judge one in the light of another in order to synthesyze, distill and otherwise incorporate these ideas into my theory/practice of life. I am so to speak that extensive/intensive infinite which everything in my cognative sphere is distilled from and measured against.
Or maybe I have missunderstood the point of your comments Terry

Terry1 - 07/26/00 17:04:29 EDT
Weber means nothing to Lacan. I have added some comments of Weber that Frank has made meaningful. Weber's term of 'the Goliath reality' etc. Frank is drawing conclusions from Weber's premises.
Reality is intensively and extensively infinite, we distil from reality to make theories,if we believe the theories they become religions' Max Weber

colline - 07/26/00 01:57:51 EDT
matthewjohnson, you can go to http://www.lacan.com/frameXIII1.htm
and to http://www.lacan.com/frameIX0.htm
these two articles talk about the gaze

Mariano - 07/25/00 12:53:39 EDT
mattewjohnson: i wasn't having a joke at your expense. Well, of course i was ironic about that stuff of the complexity of lacanians, but it is a kind of self-ironic commentary.
No, i really don't know what you mean by "gaze", maybe i don't understand your word cause i'm not an english native speaker.
Maybe you are refering to the "goze" (in spanish), jouisance (french), aren't you?

The artist formerly know as susanfrank - 07/24/00 18:33:10 EDT
Now this is really interesting:
'He was above all moved by the fact that an idea on its earthly course always and everywhere works in opposition to its original meaning and thereby destroys itself' What does this say in the context of the study and practice of Lacanian thought? Can the statement, if "true" be explained in Lacanian terms. And finally if the "earthly course" of Lacan's ideas end as Weber suggests what could the idea of a "Lacanian idea" mean, or a Weverian" for that matter. What does all this mean in terms of the notion of meconnaissance?

matthewjohnson - 07/24/00 17:46:51 EDT
mariano, you do surprise me, not knowing what I mean by The Gaze. But I am still a beginner and maybe you're having a joke at my expense. If so it's in very poor taste.

Mariano - 07/24/00 12:24:53 EDT
Matthew: Why did you explicitly asked for a "clear", "simple", answer? Did you suposed that if we like to read lacan we would tend to be very obscure? Yes, you are right.
I don't know what you mean about "gaze", sorry i can't help you.

matthew johnson - 07/24/00 09:16:23 EDT
I'm interested in Lacan's concept of The Gaze. Could anyone suggest something written in simple clear prose that explains the key elements.

Terry1 - 07/21/00 16:45:04 EDT
Much of what has been said is interesting by Frank (The Artist)and Mariano. Of course Weber is a nice choice of theorist as the first person to teach Marx in a university:
'to prove he is flawed' and Marianne Weber's quote in her biography of Weber: 'He was above all moved by the fact that an idea on its earthly course always and everywhere works in opposition to its original meaning and thereby destroys itself' Another interesting fact about Weber was his marriage to Marriane for 32 years without consummation. Mariane may have been the founder of German feminism?
As Frank notes the dialectic between poverty/wealth rich/poor up/down good/bad and so on is an argument that Levistrauss develops in his structural anthropology. Wealth cannot exists without poverty. If we were all millionnairs we would all be poor. To be wealthy implies the existence of poverty. The problem with the concept of 'causation'is that it will have to be redefined. Dr.Marx (a Doctor of Law and Philosphy who wrote more than 25 million words) read Aristotle everyear, following his concept of cause (efficient cause etc.)In modern physics old ways of understanding causation do not apply. In quantum theory the behaviour of photons and their cause becomes inexplicable at present therby supporting Lacan's articulation of the real as an unknowable place that we can only move towards but never know.

The Artist once known as susanfrank - 07/20/00 17:18:56 EDT
Terry;
I really liked the point you made about Lacanian analytic theory/(practice?) and the poor
I wonder what the implacations of pro bono practice in analysis would be though given the "meaning" of "payment" for services. Would it for example effect the shape of "transference"?
One way in which Lacanian theory might be able to address the problems of poverty and its causes (opression of various kinds) might be found on the potential effect it might have on the rich/powerful in examining their ideas about and construction of the poor. It would be difficult to deny that poverty is in some respect the bi-procduct of wealth given that wealth is constituted by the accretion of resources under the ownership (jouissance) of single individuals.
Perhaps there might be some fruitful speculation on the relationship between the enjoyment of private wealth ond the castration complex vis a vis the question of philanthropy and the consent of the wealthy to more liberal economic policy in the form of higher taxes to raise the living standards of the poor in terms of access to education and other things which might bridge the gap between rich and poor.
Just a thought.

Mariano - 07/20/00 16:24:17 EDT
Chriserv: I don't know exactly in which works Lacan apoint that idea, because i read and heard only comentators on that issue. Comentators unpublished in english or french. But if i'm not wrong i guess that Lacan works that topic in "L'enves De Psychanalise" and in "Radio et television" ( the last one is a very obscure and hard text).
Respecting your really wide question about representation on Lacan, i think about two points:1) Representation in Lacan is renamed Signifier (significante in spanish). The concept remains strongly in structural linguistics, but it don't refears exactly to the word sound of linguistic, but to any phonematic set of sounds, including sometimes words, which apears in falliures of Discourse and refears to the structural nets of the subjectivity 2)Signifier difers on freudian "reprasentanz" primarily inasmuch the first one have not any explicit reference to any kind of energy from the inside of the organism(wich is expresed as drives).Signifier is prymarily refered to another signifiers present in the speach chain of the subject of the eventual alocutories. In this sence, the conception of the signifier move theory from a monadic, energetical conception of the subjec to a transindividual one. anyway, sometimes, i suspect from this standard conception of the move from energy to significance, but it is another issue.
Respecting the discussion on capitalism with Terry I would like to propose another point of view. Ussually, lacanians tends to think that Lacan was considering capitalist discourse as a kind of a perverse one, an obturing mechanism of the desireing functions of the subject which would work obturing theese with imaginary traps. I'm not so sure of that, i´d rather choose to remember that old fact proposed by Max Weber related to the strontg component of ethics in capitalismus. In this sence capitalist discourse is not only an slavist one but a positive producer of new creations. I guess, the last is not so far away from the foucaultian idea of the possitive and productive sides of Power, conceived as not only a repressive entity.
Well, hope you can do something with theese chain of bits that all the time fail in represent what i'm traying to express, bye, bye...

chris erb - 07/20/00 11:22:28 EDT
Terryl, that is exactly what I was getting at with a capitalist critique. The fact that advertisement (which is the engine of capitalism) plays on a lack in the individual is something that is not really a new idea, but I think that you turned on an important aspect of it, that it is linked inextricably to psychoanalytic desire and the lack in the basis of the mirror stage. The metaphorics that is inherent in the project of selling a patch to that ontological fissure are interesting to me, how they exist in representation and social approval of that representation. I think your focus is a little more clinical than mine (I am sure you know much more about the subject than I do), I am focused more on how this situation affects literature, film, and the theory that exists on each.
As an aside I am aware that this application does some violence to the theories that Lacan has created and I have heard that there is some resistance to it in the psychoanalytic community (especially to Judith Butler). I understand the logic behind the resistance, but I do feel that there is a difference between theory and application (I have not been privy to these objections first hand, so I can't be sure what the real issue is).
THe role of money in the lacanian clinical approach is interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First the sheer pragmatism involved, much of the time lacan is very obscure to me, but every now and again the logic is so pragmatic that it is strange to see. Second, the attribution as money as powerful motivator. In all of the Freud that I have read I have never really seen a direct address to money as primary motivator.
Finally another question: I know that lacan's view of representation is complicated and I am not sure that I have a firm grasp on it, is there anyway that you could help me with it? If you need a more pointed question let me know, but I am at work and don't have my book or my notes handy, so if I tried to imbellish, it probably would not make sense.
Oh, and thanks for the reply.

Terry1 - 07/19/00 17:33:01 EDT
'The subject is spoken. There is a grammar in the unconsious. The unconsious is structured like a language. All meaning is variable and based on reference back. If this were not so meaning would collapse into homology.........From one object to another so do they all behave'
Object relations is a relation of any object to a subject. Capitalism supplies objects for the subject. In effect capitalism 'sells us ourselves'. However the analyst takes money from the subject. The 'giving' of the money is part of the analysis. It acts as an incentive to enable the analysand to 'know themselves' and do without the analyst. 'It is the subject who knows' already what the problem is but cannot come to realise it. In Lacanian theory every analysand is a training analyst. Money is an agent in the lacanian approach. It is recommended that the analyst must never undersell themselves for the well being of the analysand. When we look at an object of desire it is already inside us; upside down on the back of our eye. That is why we never get what we want. The majical power of words bring things into existence. They create something from nothing. The first words we use are a cry or a call for unity to be one again with the m/other. To be complete which we cannot be again. Object relations is an attempt to understand this expulsion from paradise where the breast is the womb turned inside out like a glove. All advertising plays on the 'lack' in the subject. A lack that can never be satisfied. This lack is the engine of the philosophy of desire that Lacan articulates. We desire to be complete and capiatlism fulfils the function (when we purchase goods) but only temporarily. The mirror stage begins when we see our reflection in the mother's eye or elswhere this is a meccanaissance or misrecognition by the subject and hence we mistakenly build a world around the mirror. As adults many people live 'in the mirror' completely and never get outside of it. This is why at the heart of Lacan's theory is the project. We must all have our own life project and as Spinoza said 'become what we were meant to be'

chriserb - 07/19/00 16:00:11 EDT
Mariano, could you let me know the titles of some of this later work. I have a feeling that if I go in looking for it without some idea as to what I am looking for, my search will be more arduous than necessary. Thanks for you post as well. I am focusing on capitalism here because of the dynamic of commodity in terms of the mirror image. I am sure that the model is cross cultural, but I think that how it chooses to manifest itself in each culture is the interesting part. I chose capitalism as my focus here because I feel confident in my knowledge of it, and I also feel that because of the rise of the internet and virtual reality and the rise of a world market capitalism is coming to a crisis. A crisis that I feel plays itself out in capitalisms relationship to the subject, which is paradoxically antagonistic and affable. I hope this clarifies. Thanks again

Terry1 - 07/15/00 16:37:27 EDT
AT if you peruse the comments in these columns it will help you. There are many primers on Lacan. Have a look at Jane Gallup's book or Darian Leader's serious but comic representation: 'Lacan For Beginners'

AT - 07/14/00 17:52:27 EDT
I want to try to understand lacan theories...Does anybody has an idea of what is the book which is going to let me started...?

Terry1 - 07/14/00 17:27:40 EDT
In many ways this is the weakness of Lacanian theory where the morality of the 'objective' world is seen as a mecanaissance or misrecognition by the subject. The objective structural forces of capitalism can and do, structure the lived experience of the majority of people. However this is not seen as a 'Truth'. Indeed the poor are even denied the 'access' to Lacanian therapy becase they don't have the money. Marx said: 'nn capitalism you are free until you move. Only then do you hear the chains rattle'
So is Lacanian theory a Bourgeois practice? A 'joiussance' for the post-modern condition where 2/3 of the people in the world live in poverty with NO access to education or power? How does Lacanian Theory help the poor? Should it help the poor?

Mariano - 07/14/00 16:54:14 EDT
well chriserv, i don't know if you are refering your idea to the latest lacan who works the relationship between capitalismus and the four discourses, but anyway , if you don't know that, then i recomend you to get those later works. Maybe they could be helpfull for you. i want to make a little apreciation of what do i think about your idea. i think lacan have a point of view in which any kind of social system have the same status. i mean, from the point of view of the subjet and its becomings trough culture. I think your idea must be apliedd too if we consider not only capitalismus , but also comunism or monarchie. the lacanian structural model , in same sense, pretends to be a "trans-cultural" one.
well, i don't know if my reflections have aported something to you, i hope so.

chriserb - 07/14/00 13:24:32 EDT
Can anyone help me with a couple of questions that I have in regard to some of Lacan's theories? I want to make sure that I am understanding them correctly. I am having trouble with a couple points and am in need of assistence. After reading the mirror stage, I was impressed by the social implications that this theory invokes. What I am most impressed with is the idea of an external ideal, and how this ideal operates on our social conceptions of self and others. To explain, if we create an ideal that is continually external and we are trying to resolve the fissure that begins at the mirror stage, the avenues that we choose to attempt to rectify this split are influenced by exteriority. This would explain why exterior models and objects become representations of self in the social realm, i.e. a car as status symbol and the underlying reasons behind the thrill of purchase (and here I think this begins an important tie between the function of capitalism and Lacan's mirror stage). Does this seem reasonable, or am I way off base?

Tom Thumb - 07/13/00 16:44:32 EDT
There are some rather limited explanations afloat as to how to create a psychosis in a child in an ordinary and observable way. They center upon a physical sexual relationship between mother and child, heavy petting and so on in case studies, which prevents the paternal prohibition from taking root. But everyone who watches Jerry Springer knows that incest is not sufficient to provoke a psychosis, even where the sexual gratification between mother and child is complete, or stable. "The family that lays together stays together."

What is sufficient is that the mother have the talent to take aim at the unconscious of the child -- not in the strictest sense, but in the sense that Bruce Fink uses it when he describes in his Clinical Introduction how a psychotic displays all his dirty laundry (secrets, fantasies, etc.) without even the same mixed satisfaction and revulsion that greets a neurotic when he discloses something. For a psychotic, everything is already known, the circuit between subject and Other has been interrupted. The mother must demonstrate not only that she knows what the child is thinking, but that she knows the contours of the thought, in several dimensions, and so doing, is not subject herself to the Other.

One may achieve a similar effect in one's partner in late puberty or early adulthood when they are first trying to become a man or woman, and induce a homosexuality, by recognizing the existence of a thought or the movement of the subject and rigorously remaining immune to it. Consider that in love, what matters most is that spontaneous response of the Real, which by never lying ensures subjectivity. By being consistent, and employing a touch of craft, one can "recognize" another's subjectivity, in a strong transferential setting, and simlutaneously destroy it, leaving the person in question to dream of the perverse solution.

Terry1 - 07/11/00 15:40:49 EDT
To start a new discourse...........1)The link between pleasure and bumping...Why do we enjoy bumping in to people?............2) 'James Joyce uses a knot that is not borromean we are bolted into place by Joyce. He forges an ego out of writing. For Joyce writing establishes the ego. Joyce knows we lack. We forge our identity knowing the Other doesn't exist. Characters do not live in their bodies'.....Parveen Adams any comments?

arm - 07/10/00 03:37:35 EDT
is there any body?

Colline - 06/10/00 19:30:27 EDT
Rudolph - can you clarify for me how the agency of the Name-of-the-Father acts with regard to "the missing link that articulates objet a (the cotton-reel)"?

am - 06/04/00 23:23:32 EDT
Rudolph-
Compare Lacan's discussion of the fort-da with the work of Heinz Kohut. For Kohut, weakness in the formation of primary narcissism (which, for our purposes here, I am equating with the mechanism of primary representaion) was strictly pathological. For him, the unified self was a natural, desireable condition and the ultimate goal of analysis. As much as this seems diametrically opposed to Lacan, it does appear that if one strips away the more top-heavy conceptual apparatus of either Lacan or Kohut, you are left with a rather remarkable and disturbing similiarity: a kind of essentialism drawn around this central conception of subjectivity, Kohut's being normative and Lacan's existential(and thus also normative.)(I am not even mentioning here the similiar debate which has raged around the text of "Female Sexuality", nor the increasingly essentialist leanings of some contemopary Lacanians) In short: Can one really be a Lacanian and a constructivist? I suspect that the answer is yes, but I do think that it would have to be problematic. Any thoughts? Am I just busy staring at a fish tin floating in the sea, missing an important concept that would clarify this?

Terry1 - 06/04/00 17:29:28 EDT
Thank you for your elaboration Rudolph and Knairb.
Saturday 17th June London CFAR: Philip Hill "Jouissance and the English garden"
Saturday 10th June London CFAR: Jean Luc Monnier "The Father in Freud and Lacan's teaching"
Saturday 24th June London CFAR: François Sauvagnat "Lacan and the Hungarian School"
Jouissance = "to have AND to own"

Rudolph - 06/03/00 05:34:01 EDT
Let's begin with the following proposition: the structure of the imaginary is determined by the symbolic. Then, we may posit that satisfaction is to be found in the deliverance of meaning, in the symbolic decoding, in communication. With the Other? Certainly, since it's the Other that somehow ratifies the linguistic formations proceeding from the subject. Yet, on the side of the subject the production of meaning implies suffering (in the case of Freud's grandson, the cotton-reel represents a subtraction from his self, something cannot be symbolized), whence the symptom as non-delivered meaning: the symptom as uphold by repression. What cannot be symbolized belongs to the register of the imaginary, an imaginary satisfaction: jouissance. Should we call on narcissism, "it envelops the forms of desire." Lacan argues that when symbolic elaboration fails or is feeble, there emerge transitory preversions as extrusions of imaginary jouissance. Lacan's sequence could be summarized in this way: transformation of what is libidinal into imaginary, and then the imaginary into the symbolic. Now, drives are structured in terms of language, so Lacan first pulls the drives out from imaginary jouissance (drives as linguistic structures), then when signifying jouissance, the drive proceeds from a symbolic subject. Therefore he writes the drive after the demand, that is, after an eminently symbolic term, and this construction is capital in the signification of jouissance. This is quite evident in regard to the anal and oral drives. Lacan inscribes this Other's demand in the formula of the drive, that is, he re-transcribes the drive in symbolic terms. And this brings forth the fantasm, the missing link that articulates objet a (the cotton-reel) which in turn needs the agency of the Name-of-the-Father.

knairb - 06/02/00 15:42:48 EDT
the ejection of something from Self (Sinn) in order to acheive mastery in Sense (Bedeutung), is a foundational, constitutional act; it sets up a world for the subject to inhabit. violent, yes, but nothing so perverse about it. what signals a degree of perversion in Little Hans is the constant repetition of the act. because of a haunting anxiety that the primal sacrifice was after all not enough, the same sacrifice must be enacted again and again. the new subject worries over a fundamental failure perceived in the heart of the matrix of meaning. eventually, it becomes clear that the subject in fact perversely refuses to surrender a primal object as lost to the past, refuses to consider a certain operation as over and done. perversion is not a repudiation of the law, but rather a repeated attempt to instantiate the law, to force the Other to reveal either its phallus or its ass. This type of repetition, either through witholding or excess production, is determined to scandalize meaning, law, force it reveal itself in its power or impotence (though the former is the sought outcome and the latter is the cause of anxiety); such retention belongs not to the register of the phallic but rather the anal, and indicates not desire but demand and the drive. the initial toss of the bobbin, in which it is identified with the mother, is then apparently not perverse; but the second toss, in which the bobbin is identified with the self, is perverse, goes beyond pleasure. it does not detach self from mother, who would thus appear as a part of self, but rather reinstantiates mother as subject and views itself as a part of her, her object, her phallus.
a question arises, though, regarding temporality, the purity of the first instance, the initial toss. isn't drive in fact primary, and desire in fact a mere effect of the drive? isn't it desire which stands in need of constant upkeep by means of ineluctably performing the same futile gestures again and again? the pervert knows exactly what he's doing, and yet . . . for buneal, the act of (s)educ[a]tion is a mobilum perpetuum; because the woman the hero desires and attempts to seduce is constantly shifting, is afterall a mere effect of his struggles in the real (he's always finally got the right key, the right factor, only to discover that by the imp of perversity the lock has been changed).

am - 06/02/00 05:42:24 EDT
ps: If you please, what is the Bunuel sense of the "object of desire?"

am - 06/02/00 05:32:34 EDT
Rudolph: What a wonderfully succinct explanation. The phrase "the child precludes the absence of the mother by way of the register of the symbolic" is quite interesting, in that it seems to suggest that the game is an act of control over the mother, not over the subject. This would indeed lead one to see the game as sadistic.
I have always found it easy to think of the the fort-da as peek-a-boo, presence/absence.
Now, if the cotton-reel signifies the subject, then isn't the entrance into signification, into language, primarily an act of masochism as I said earlier? Or, from another direction, if the fort-da is the first attempt at mastering loss through signification,then would it not be quite reasonable to interpret this as an extention of Kojeve's position that the Master needs to be liberated by the slave, that she is enslaved herself in the act of domination? (By the way, this is not a rhetorical question)

Rudolph - 06/02/00 00:55:55 EDT
The story of Fort-Da as told by Freud in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, is that one day he observed his grandson, who has been left by his mother (apparently she ran away with his father) repeatedly throwing a cotton-reel away and retrieving it again (a process of continual disappearance and reappearance). Each time the cotton-reel disappears he cries out Fort, when he makes it reappear he cries out Da. This process could be viewed as the primal symbolization (which according to Lacan "Freud revealed as lying at the origin of the repetition compulsion"), that is, the inception of the signifying chain. The child precludes the absence of the mother by way of the register of the symbolic. Following Lacan "this chain develops in accordance with logical links whose grasp on that which is to be signified, l'être and l'étant (being and existent), operates thru the effects of the signifier." Now, in Seminar XI, Lacan stresses the fact that there is a gap (béance) introduced by the absence of the mother. The cotton-reel is not the mother, but something of the subject himself, which comes and goes if one may say so. The coton-reel is a signifier, yet the object is what designates the subject. This object Lacan calls objet a. Fort-Da then can be posited as: 1.hidden cause of desire, 2.object of desire (in the Buñuel sense), and 3.symptom. The latter being indeed quite debatable.

Terry1 - 06/01/00 19:16:40 EDT
In the interest of embellishment can somebody outline the basic structure of the fort-da game?

am - 06/01/00 06:35:10 EDT
Thus, wouldn't the Death Drive be not in the domain of the Master or the Slave, but squarely in that of the Real? And isn't this a (rather wonderful) kind of Anarchism?

am - 06/01/00 06:29:59 EDT
ps-- a related question for anyone who cares to venture a reply: If we accept Zizek's assertion that Lacan was a "vanishing mediator" as defined by Jameson, then any attempt to systematize his work or to emulate him (as Webster was doing here some weeks ago) is not only doomed, but would be "reification" in the fullest Marxist-Hegellian sense.
If the fort-da game is masochistic, then language is alienating and the death drive, (once again, perfume)-- or the Ethical Act that risks symbolic Death-- would be the only thing that offers the potential for liberation, not poetic language, and not "perversion" as it is commonly defined.

am - 06/01/00 05:49:00 EDT
Rudolph:
I have never understood this point about sadism. Freud may have interpreted the the fort-da game as essentially sadistic, but wouldn't a Lacanian analysis be that it is really masochistic?

Terry 1 - 05/31/00 18:25:21 EDT
Jouissance ='To have or to own.....to be complete' but we can never be complete. We are split or cut (suture) from the thing that made us. We can only be complete in fleeting moments. Philip Hill will be doing a seminar at the London CFAR on Jouissance and the English country garden in June a date will follow.

Rudolph - 05/27/00 14:08:29 EDT
A distinction should be made between Lacan's concept of jouissance in his Ethics and its further development in Seminar XI. In the former jouissance seems to be positioned in such a way as to ask for a kind of transgression in order to reach it, one has to get into sadism to understand it. In the latter we face a kind of fragmented jouissance (objet a): one reaches jouissance through the drive. The Ethics champions heroism (Antigone) whereas The Four Fundamental Concepts posits art as medium. I think you should look in there for the difference between language and phallus though I don't think that we should be dealing with "two Lacans."

Colline - 05/26/00 20:47:22 EDT
Rudolf, can you describe for me the "difference between language and the phallus?"

Gina - 05/23/00 00:47:20 EDT
XXXXX.... in the Écrits.

XXXXX - 05/23/00 00:46:02 EDT
Hi I am a student and was wondering where lacan wrote about the homellete?

Rudolf - 05/17/00 13:14:27 EDT
I'm a student, serious and industrious. Sometimes my sense of humor is rather spooky. Regarding lalangue, let's state that in the beginning Lacan posited jouissance via desire and the phallus, thereby asserting a difference between language and the phallus. However, he lately introduced the notion that language carried an instance that was a kind of jouissance. If language was made of signifiers linked to other signifiers, there was a signifier that didn"t. Then language not only is possessed by effects of meaning, but lso by direct effects of jouissance. Libido has an imaginary status. Jouissance proceeds from the ego as imaginary instance.

Terry1 - 05/14/00 17:08:13 EDT
Perfume can you clear up this notice board please....It will detract serious students from using the site

Rudy the Reindeer - 05/14/00 02:42:18 EDT
hey hey VaGina, you are so vicious...

VaGina - 05/13/00 13:37:27 EDT
Imply? That is the explicit definition of montage; no implication need exist. Does it imply that she has breasts from two different people? That would be more interesting.

Gina - 05/12/00 21:55:09 EDT
z00mSta - did you read about the girl on the cover of the new Lacanian Ink that she is a digital montage? And does montage implie that she's done with bits and pieces belonging to different people?

zOOmSta - 05/12/00 13:38:09 EDT
If you look closely at the girl on the cover of the new Lacanian Ink, you can see her nipples.

Hubbell - 05/12/00 13:35:14 EDT
What we have right away is that knowledge that another has being, or at least the assertion, is no substitute for taking responsibility, by one of the many artifaces that the Other has graciously made room for us to use.

perfume - 05/07/00 13:24:43 EDT
Terry2 - So what we have right away is that Webster was right. Not in The Lacanian Subject - on page 183 you have lalangue - but in Encore, Fink translates lalangue into llanguage. Worst of all I now remember seeing it, thinking it was rather uggly, and then I forgot about it.
Actually Fink's translation of Encore is a very good one, just a bit heavy with notes for my taste.

Terry2 - 05/06/00 20:52:30 EDT
"The very academics: Fink, Copjec... lalangue is lalangue..." Bruce Fink translates the word as "llanguage" in his translation, Chapter XI, Seminar XX.

perfume - 05/05/00 01:31:04 EDT
Webster... ay, ay ,ay... you misspelled the word?!
Read what you wrote: <. To this I responded: "Lacan, in his last writings, coined the term lalangue. In English you keep the term unchanged - you do not translate it: lalangue is lalangue." (not llanguage)

Terry1 - 05/04/00 18:25:40 EDT
Oh Dear!! Webster
Webster why do you wish to play games with yourself?..Why do you wish to deceive us and yourself?....Webster if you really want us to engage you, speak the TRUTH. I have no reason to deceive you. For me you do not exist. You are merely an atavar. You are nothing, no-thing.
I hope we are helping you heal yourself when you take your anxieties out on people who want no fight with you? I restate what I typed:
'I don't remember seeing anbody write there is no such thing as lsnguage....' Unfortunately I wasn't being truthful enough ....I did NOT SEE anybody write the above. The reaction I get from these marks on the screen is determined by myself and NOT you.
Are you going to write anything useful?

Webster - 05/03/00 22:12:42 EDT
To re-cap,
Perfume has jumped the gun and told a little white lie. See Chapter XI of Seminar XX, translated by Bruce Fink. In Television, translated by Hollier, Krauss, and Michelson, not Copjec, the word "lalangue" is retained. You have been talking to these idiots too long to feel the need to defend them. Terry, of course, told far too much truth when he said he didn't remember anybody writing "there is no such thing as language," since this included just me, the only person to have written it: he saw it and forgot it. He then goes on to exhort that truth cannot exist without its definition, and exactitude cannot exist because we cannot measure it, which suggests to anyone who cares that Lacanianism in America is little more than pop culture's relativism supported by arguments borrowed from empiricism. Bri(a)nk comes the closest when he ridicules me achieving an exact effect in his Unconscious. (He, of course, would know.) What he does not know is that I am there, fucking him, in that crippled impediment that he nurses along so as to pass the days, limping from surreal experience to surreal experience ...

a.m. - 05/02/00 08:56:03 EDT
here i am.. back again to annoy i suppose (though not intentionally), but i do have a question.. have been reading Austin, Searle, and Quinne.. the similarities between speech act theory and the early Lacan seem to me to be quite remarkable... surely someone somewhere has already written on this .... any thoughts or reading suggestions?

bri(a)nk - 05/01/00 21:35:19 EDT
Web-ster,
How perfectly true of you to acheive exactly your intended effect. Phony!

Terry1 - 05/01/00 17:54:50 EDT
I don't remember anybody writing: 'there is no such thing as language'. Can Webster tell us what truth is? Can Webster tell us how exactitude in language can be measured? The only way we can use words meaningfully is with the use of puns...Puns stop meaning. They stop the signifying chain of meaning....the metonymy, metaphor, diacrony and sycrony. Condensation and displacement work to create meaning after connotation ans denotation have evoked a representation. Webster you obviously get a lot of meaning from grammatical inconsistency......You should be looking at the grammatical inconsistency in the unconscious of the writer who produces the texts that you dislike so much. 'The unconscious is structured like a language'...Boudriallard said : 'If we read a book or texts properly, it should fall from our hands!'

perfume - 05/01/00 17:46:51 EDT
Webster, with the infatuated name you've found for yourself... You mean lalangue?
Lacan, in his last writings, coined the term lalangue. In English we keep the term unchanged. I've even checked just now with the very academics: Fink, Copjec... lalangue is lalangue...

Webster - 04/30/00 14:34:23 EDT
There is no such thing as language -- only llanguage. That means exactitude exists -- we have seen it. Just as truth does. It also means that enjoyment exists. And false being. It is that enjoyment of false being that I despise. Well-spoken? Do you know what it means? Of course not. Does it mean restriction to a particular lexicon? No. It means being attentive to the effects of meaning in the Unconscious. In this case, the effects were exactly as I intended.

bri(a)nk - 04/29/00 19:34:02 EDT
Dear persistent Terry 1--
you know I actually referenced Goya's paintings of collosi (Panic, etc.--you know the ones) in my work on Emerson, Thoreau and Rauschenberg--tied these paintings to more literal depictions (or tracks, cause the death drive can never give itself directly, only via a screen, a stump) of unstoppable-blind-indifferent-negative forces as depicted in 19th-century paintings of the clear-cutting of the American wilderness to make way for the railroads. So you and I are on a similar ride afterall. As for Goya and the Sun, don't stare at them for too long, God either! You'll go deaf.

Terry1 - 04/29/00 17:49:01 EDT
Manet sais: 'I have two gods Goya and the Sun'......Has anybody got any comments on why Goya bought the 'House of the Deaf Man' when he nearly died and became deaf....I call goya the Beethoven of Art. His caprices or Black picures which were painted on the walls of the House of the Deaf Man are now in the Prado museum and represent the futility and stupidity of the human condition. Does anybody know why the Duchess of Alba loved him only when he wnt deaf. Goya's last painting was the Milkmaid of Bordeaux. this along with the '3rd of May' (the most famous anti-war painting ever produced) makes Goya's paintings the most profound in Art History.....Any Lacanian thoughts on this?

bri(a)nk - 04/29/00 17:40:53 EDT
Dear ETC-- Welcome abroad!

I know you've got to hurry on this thing, so I'd recommend you restrict any Lacan you read to the lecture on the Mirror Stage and also his comments on Aggressivity and Transitivism--next in the Ecrits. These are shorter more basic pieces and quite simply the best place to begin; Lacan did. Anyhow, a look at these will prepare you to say something about mimetic rivalry (Medea and Creuse) as well as the paranoia intrinsic to the formation of the ego. As Borch-Jacobson will inform you in his discussion on the rivalry between Freud and Jung, the outcome of such conflict in generally yeilds one megalomaniac and one broken-down schizophrenic; guess which is which! There's also lots of stuff you could say about hysteria vs obsession, but that would take a lot more secondary reading, although I will add that hysteria can to some extent be said to derive from an inability to form a secure ego, or more precisely an identity--in other words to become self-identical; the hysteric is tragically traumatically bound to another scene--plays it out in the body (she's always bound to some other unfinished piece of business). These are just some thoughts, but in any case, I'd try to keep it simple: read those two much shorter pieces within the Ecrits, and also glance at the ground-breaking work on mimetic rivalry in literature by Rene Girard, all of which deals with rivalry and sacrifice and is based on these same two crucial essays by Lacan. Girard has a bunch of books, all saying about the same thing: so pick just one, say, Violence and the Sacred; To Double Business Bound; or Deceit, Desire and the Novel; get what you need from it to make the Mirror Stage clear to yourself; and then get out so you can go off and be brilliant in your own way. Also, I might warn you to stay away, despite the tempting title, from the seminar on Feminine Sexuality, which everyone seems to want to push prematurely on the novice. Unless you've got lots of time and are reading with a fantastic tutor, it will only confuse you.
Hey, best of luck. Post again if you get stuck. And thanks for not judging the rest of us on the less than witty or charitable comments of one mofo blowhard, who has no business at all appearing here. Though, I do believe Dr. Syntax has a web-site out there, where Smellfungus can go detumesce with his old crony Pecksniff. Your petition, it seems to me however, is just what this message board is for.
B

Terry1 - 04/29/00 17:29:52 EDT
Webster......Language is a system of difference....all meaning is variable and based on reference back. If this were not so, symbols would collapse into homology. There is only one letter in the Alphabet the letter 'a'....b gets its meaning because it's in front of 'a' and behind 'c'.....and so on. This is the great chain of meaning or the signifying chain. The treasury of signifiers being in the big other. Exactitude in language as Webster wants is impossible.......As long as he gets meaning from it and has a healthy reaction to spelling errors he has no problem. However speaking is another thing. I think lacan said: ' It is our duty to speak well'.

Gina - 04/28/00 20:26:42 EDT
I would go to the "The Golden Fleece," by Robert Graves.
And there's also "Medea," the Passolini movie with Maria Callas.

Emily Tyler Currie <currie02@sbc.edu - 04/28/00 20:18:29 EDT
Hello- I am fascinated by this web site; a lot of what people write in the forums is a bit advanced for me (I'm a college sophomore), but I enjoy reading people's critiques on Lacan very much. I have only read sections of Ecrits for my Psychology of Religion class, but I hope to take many more classes on Lacanian theories in the future. That being said, however, I was wondering if you could help me out. . . I am doing a paper on Euripides "Medea", and analyzing it from a Lacanian and French feministic perspective. The paper is supposed to be only 15 pages (due wednesday, May 3), so I have to really articulate my thesis effectively. Problem is, I am having trouble figuring out what I want to say (blame it on the name of the father) I was wondering if you knew of any references (books or web sites) that could possibly help me structure and support my paper. Any ideas? I hope I am not insulting you by asking this-- I realize that this is a very scholarly web site, but I thought I should at least attempt to seek some expert advice. Thank you very much. Tyler Currie

Webster - 04/28/00 16:16:58 EDT
One would think that motherfuckers who cannot spell would not think themselves able to study psychoanalysis.

Terry1 - 04/27/00 18:01:10 EDT
'From one object to another so do they all behave'............any thoughts?

Terry1 - 04/24/00 15:11:07 EDT
'Neurosis is the limit of freedom'..........discuss

leigh - 04/22/00 19:34:08 EDT
Would someone comment on Anthony Wilden's translation of Lacan's "The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis"? I do not see it in the bibliographies. In the Zizek books I have preused, it is not listed. However, I may not know how to use this web site.

Terry1 - 04/22/00 17:02:08 EDT
Can anybody comment on 'Leaves of grass'..........

Terry1 - 04/22/00 16:59:22 EDT
Can anybody illuminate the Philosophy of Thoreau and show how it links to Emerson.....

Terry1 - 04/20/00 14:49:53 EDT
Bri(a)nk

Thoreau said: 'I am a part of nature not apart from it'....can you say something about Thoreau and his Philosophy of looking into small pools of water? Apparently there are two Richard Kliens one who was the President of the Lacanian European School and one who writes books on the pleasures of smoking......The one who was President is an aquaintence who I know from Lacanian seminars......I don't think he would mind me saying he is a great fan of Clint Eastwood.....He cited the film...'The Perfect World' by Eastwood as a good portrayal of the Lacanian male position. The boy begins to love the Costner father character who has done no wrong and is killed for it. Can you say something more about Rauschenberg and his work and how this relates to philosophy, Lacanian or otherwise?

bri(a)nk - 04/19/00 18:27:01 EDT
dear terry 1--
check out page 226 of the roudinesco bio. apparently the most bristling fact about heidegger was his utter indifference not to speed but to breakfast sausage. with regard to your previous inquiry regarding approaching the real, i've been doing some writing on emerson and must conclude that the "real" reason for his breach with thoreau had little to do with politics or ideas but rather with very particular (singular) matters of taste, with the inability to comprehend another's: „it is a misfortune of thoreaus‚s that he has no appetite . . .. he neither eats nor drinks. what can you have in common with a man who does not know the difference between icecream and cabbage and who has no experience of wine or ale?‰ compare this to thoreau‚s amused incomprehension of the pleasures of tobacco: „my excuse for not lecturing against tobacco is that i never chewed it; . . . though there are things enough i have chewed, which i could lecture against." meanwhile, in walden, he shows a bemused tolerance for what was utterly horrifying to the „common‰ culture--cannibalism and tattooing. the real is what grates on you.

by the way, is your friend richard klien or richard klein, whose book on cigarettes my students hate to love?

Terry1 - 04/18/00 16:02:50 EDT
bri(a)nk
You've just triggered a thought........
Marx noted : 'all that is solid melts into air'.......'We are free until we move.......only then do we here the chains rattle....'
Weber also noted the master trend in the world of rationality......He called it :'the iron cage of rationality' and beleived it was unstoppable.....however as you probably know he also spoke about; 'The Goliath Reality'........Marrianne Weber wrote his biography and noted after 32 years of and unconsummated marriage: 'He was above all moved by the fact that an idea on its earthly course always and everywhere works in opposition to its original meaning and thereby destroys itself'

Terry1 - 04/18/00 14:29:38 EDT
Thankyou Bri(a)k

Richard Klien gave me the Lacan/Foucault story....Also Lacan's brother mentioned it I think in London...thanks for the correction.......if Elizabeth Roudinescu is correct?........

Your metaphysical pathos/pain/empathy is very evident in the words you choose. Technological determinism is not so one sided........'reality is intensively and extensively infintite, we distil from reality to make theories if we believe the theories they become religions' we live in a phenomenal world. A dynamic fluid changing world where anything is possible. The concept of falsification is hinged on this. Popper spoke about World 1, World2 and World3. Technological determinsm is indeterminate and is in the hands of human beings......2/3 of the people in the world don't have access to, or cannot use a telephone because they lack the technology or the knowledge to do so.

bri(a)nk - 04/17/00 21:43:01 EDT
dear terry 1--

if you look in Elizabeth Roudinescou's biography Jacques Lacan you will see that the alpine automotive adventure took place with Doctor Lacan in the driver's seat and the indifferent Professor Martin Heidegger in the passengers seat. Just to steer you straight. With regard to other recent postings, it might be better to consider Lacan's joy ride not so much in terms of Pollock's demise as in terms of Marinetti's technological baptism--coming up out of the ditch and no longer identifying with the body so much as the car, with technology. The blind destructive force of technology also appears in Rauschenberg‚s combines as well as Warhol‚s offset images of automobile accidents. Not only do the images evoke a sense of an unstoppable force, but also a force with its own telos which has nothing to do with that of nature. To see the violence in Warhol‚s automobile crashes as reflecting a human pathos is entirely to miss the point. Rather than human tragedy, Warhol herein concentrates on mechanical tragedy. The impaled motorist in Warhol‚s painting seems a mere mannequin, and the indifferent pedestrian who nonchallantly walks past the whole scene of destruction shows the singular indifference of a humanity devoid of all pathological feeling--given over instead to some ineffible "Stimmen". Technology does not function here as a backdrop to human agency, but human figures appear as merely scenic, as props which support a protagonistic technology. Unable to move out of its programmed course, Warhol‚s pedestrian--so reminiscent of the figures in the 19th-century railroad photographs--is unperturbable and committed to nothing other than completing its immediate appointed task. The true disaster here looms not in the realm of humanity, but in the realm of technology; it is the automobile which stands to be lost, and humanity only appears as a framework, a grill within which blind technology blazes--something Pollock might have pissed on. Surely Lacan knew something about the speed of light and was capable of chasing the gaze. Think of Lacan not only as driver, but also as Navigator (the title of one of Rauschenberg's combines). These pieces do not reveal the destructive power of technology itself, for technology itself, destruction itself, or the radical power of negativity, can only be evidenced by positive means. And this positivization of the negative, in Warhol and Rauschenberg, includes the serial production (and destruction) of images and objects. Any photograph of Warhol‚s studio will reveal the massive accumulation of canvasses, produced for no specific patron, but simply smeared into existance. And Rauschenberg‚s combines give evidence of, if nothing else, the massive amount of debris left behind after technology does what it simply does, oblivious of human being and beyond all human control. Thus Navigator, beyond being simply another instance of technological pseudo-pathos, appears as an artifical satellite made in an already-destroyed state, already crashed. From the start, it is designed to go nowhere, circle no planet, and communicate nothing.

perfume - 04/17/00 02:43:14 EDT
Terry1...on approaching the Real...the crisis point in sexual intercourse...

what Lacan calls the "other" orgasm corresponds with full emergence of enjoyment precisely in the subject's place... and this is how it shatters out causality by the object on behalf of a jouissance imperviously closed over itself/herself. It follows that between the orgiastic enjoyment and the subject there is exclusion - the presence of one doing for the absence of the other.

Terry1 - 04/16/00 18:02:51 EDT
The Driver.....The topology that Lacan opens up, the Real, the Imaginary and the Symbolic are three orders which construct a human being....The real state of a human being is a stated of Trauma....Language takes us out of Trauma it gives us structure.We can kill with words or fall in love with words........Language can make us fluid or stiff in our actions........Non-Euclidean geometry is an attempt to draw or represent a space that has form in a Lacanian sense......that is not represented by planes and axes in 3 dimensional space

Has anybody got any thoughts on approaching the Real...........For instance the crisis point in sexual intercourse occurs when meaning stops and can be thought of as contact with the Real......A loss of consciousness occurs.......

perfume - 04/15/00 21:29:42 EDT
Gina... in fact I have the information for "Drawing the Soul: Schemas and Models in Psychoanalysis." Bernard Burgoyne (Editor), Eric Rayner. Paperback - 180 pages (June 1999), Rebus Press; ISBN: 1900877023

Terry1 - 04/15/00 17:43:45 EDT
Gina it was published in London I have given the address to Perfume........I don't have the details to hand at the moment. Bernard was Sir Karl Popper's research student when Popper was challenging the Vienna Circles concept of verification in favour of falsification. As you know the Vienna Circles definition (by Reichenbach and other's) of the meaning of a word was: 'the meaning of a word is the method of its verification'
Popper shifted this to 'fasification' implying that we can never know anything is true. It will only be true tentatively until it is falsified.

Gina - 04/15/00 15:34:38 EDT
Terry 1... oh, I want that book... can you tell me more... the name of the publisher, and was it published in England?

Gina - 04/15/00 15:31:45 EDT
Martin...
tell me who you are... and I will tell you about your lack in being

Terry 1 - 04/15/00 07:05:21 EDT
Bernard Bergoyne's new book 'Drawing the Soul' explains the concepts of non-Euclidean geometry and the use of projective geometry to draw a space that we cannot see.

Bernard is a founder member of CFAR in London ( a Lacanian based training and research centre). Darain Leader and Richard Klien along with Bice Benvenuto were also founder members who set CFAR up.

Martin - 04/14/00 18:59:59 EDT
Gina...
"It is somewhat prohibited not to be..."

the driver - 04/13/00 21:48:20 EDT
Terry 1, would you imagine that Lacan would feel uncomfortable in the passenger's seat of not Foucault's but Pollock's vehicle, not the Model-A, (or was it a T) but the one that he tried to curve space with, so to speak, trying to be "unconscious". I'ld like to know, because the woman I'm familiar with reminds me of Grace Heartagain. Why are lacanian's interested in non-Euclidean geometry?

Justin - 04/13/00 21:05:47 EDT
What's next? The censorship of meretricious displays of being intellectually in the know, but nonetheless inquisitive and thus a bit of the waif? Are we to be good lacanians and feign poetic omniscience, while we are not only disgusted, but nauseated by not only ourselves but the thing that created us? Nonetheless, I fell better now that I read Wajcman. At least I'm not hysteric.

Martin - 04/13/00 14:19:53 EDT
Gina... is there by chance something else to be?

a.m. - 04/12/00 21:18:01 EDT
does anyone have any thoughts regarding Lacan's seemingly conflictual remarks on Merleau-Ponty? is he "damning with faint praise"?

Caroline - 04/12/00 17:30:03 EDT
mabel grant... stop the spamming!

Gina - 04/11/00 23:49:45 EDT
Body Politics: so that's a great line in Badiou's Highly Speculative Reasoning...
"It is somewhat prohibited not to be a democrat."

mabel grant - 04/11/00 14:43:13 EDT
Jo, I've just had the thought that you are in need of two i's in order to make your mark
You being the presumed d-anatmoi" type subject, perfuming at that! OK so you can have it back then, but only if................. you reveal which of your present (f)Other's is most likely to be the one to pass you over and for what sort of (m)Other
josi baby you have yet to encounter that REAL

mabel grant - 04/10/00 16:51:25 EDT
Apologies Jo
I gave you one i too many last night
perhaps thats because I had 12many
Cheers!

a.m. - 04/09/00 21:44:21 EDT
Terry1-
what a great story about Foucault and Lacan. Never heard it before. You might find this interesting: in the footnotes to the first chapter of Zizek's book "The Indivisible Remainder," there is a long remark on the murder of Althusser's wife in which Zizek quotes Althusser and draws some convincing Lacanian conclusions. Zizek and others see the concept of interpellation as analogous to misrecognition, though you are certainly right to point out that Althusser did not not get it from Lacan (I've even read that Althusser might never have actually read him...)Also, I believe that Althusser wrote his biography from the asylum, though I could be mistaken.

Terry1 - 04/09/00 16:54:21 EDT
A.M Can you tell us the name of the book that Althusser 'wrote from the nuthouse' The interpellation that Althusser referred to was concerning the 'Relative Autonomy'of ideas from the marxist concept of the 'economic base'. Marx noted: 'Consciousness is created by life-not life by consciousness' from this Althusser deduced (using Aristotle's concept of 'efficient cause',he read Aristotle every year)that we are 'hailed' or called by symbols. As far as I know Althusser NEVER told anyone why de murdered his wife. Althusser tried to build on The Laws of History that Marx believed he had found as a scientific socialist...From this he deduces alienation, false consciousness, class consiosness, hegemony and the rest. I believe that Althusser, Sartre, Camus chose Mwarxism because it offered them more freedom.
A.M. mentioned Foucault......can anybody confirm that he was driving in a car with Lacan
and deliberately increased the speed of the car to induce fear in Lacan....saying : 'I do not lack'....the car apparantly was racing around dangerous alpine ranges....Lacan said nothing.

a.m. - 04/09/00 15:34:33 EDT
perfume--
My bad. I should have referenced the allusion to "The Freudian Thing" in my earlier comments. (There is no Other. There is no petit a...) Lacan says throughout Ecrits that A) Metaphor and metonymy (for example) don't exist and B) That when he speaks of metaphor and metonymy, he is not speaking figuratively-- they actually exist. This is not a contradiction. My understanding is that the statements in Television that you are fond of refer at least in part to the fact that truth is strictly a function of language, and that that function has very real physical consequences for living breathing human beings.The same thing goes for brian's earlier reference to mathesis ... brian almost seemed to be saying that repetition is a working-through of "problems" in the sense used in ego psychology, but this is exactly what it is not. It is a hovering at the limits of representation. Lacan is not offering a metaphysical confirmation of the "Cult of Individuality." Even Foucault, the most energetic critic of psychiatry, said that Lacan offered an Ethic of psychoanalysis. My little story was only meant to point back to the ultimate fragility of identification (the centerpiece of which is sexual identity for Lacan)and the joyousness of that fragility.
Lacan was first an analyst, not an art critic or a trendy new-age obscurantist. Try reading something other than the Television interview for a time.. Go back to Ecrits or the Seminars, or even The Four Fundamental Concepts. Lacan raged! Better yet, read Klein, Winnicot, Fairbain.. some of the people that Lacan raged against. And incidentally, the remark I made about interpellation was prompted because I had been reading Zizek, a Lacanian whom I find worthy of respect and attention.If you haven't bothered to read Althusser lately, then that might be worthwhile. If someone wants to know why Althusser killed his wife, they should read the book he wrote from the nut-house.
perfume, I'm writing this only because I seem to have irritated you to the point that you are refusing to engage with the idea--thus, it's difficult to tell exactly what you are getting at with remarks like the one about Althusser killing his wife..
Lacan's work is capable of being used in the service of liberating real human beings. Locking him away in the sacred halls of literary or art theory is only a way of insulating ourselves from the real subversive potential available. If we are not careful, we will find that we have turned the "objet petit a" into nothing more than an objet petit bourgeoisie.
I'm off for a month and won't be online. You now have your peace and your space for unchallenged "repetition" back... ;=)

perfume - 04/08/00 16:36:43 EDT
Terry writes: " You mention Althusser, why do you think he murdered his wife?"

Terry.... I guess your post is addressing a.m., not Briank - it gets confusing, I know. In any case a.m. is the one to mention Althusser, "...(and resembles Althussers interpellation). There is no Other. There is no petit a. There is flesh, shit, piss, tears, lips, movement, warmth ..." did Althusser utter this "interpellation" after murdering the wife?

Terry1 - 04/08/00 15:23:04 EDT
Bri(a)nk.........can you tell us about your feelings when you were engaging in your dance with death.Why do you need to tell us these things? It is good that you do but why? You mentions Althusser, why do you think he murdered his wife?

a.m. - 04/07/00 03:17:09 EDT
thank you so much Stylus and bri(a)nk.
I find it curious that my little story was interpreted as a problem. Part of the implicit point was that there was no "problem." My willingness to be the object of my friends desire was (only in retrospect) an example of an act that risked symbolic death, not publicly, but in the realm of my own symbolic economy. It was an act of liberation and a "tuche."(sp?)
Gina and perfume: Borderline Personality Disorder is a distinctly American construction and a foriegn concept to the Lacanian analyst. The Death Drive, the antithesis of the unified ego, is what compells us to submit ourselves to the plentitude of identifications available to us. Although I am sympathetic to your discomfort,remember that Lacan said early on that the imposition of the unified ego in therapy was related to aggression-- this, I believe, applies as well to the very notion of a "private" problem (as it does to private property.)

bri(a)nk -- you are very articulate and make a powerful point. abjection has to be the stuff of the petit a. it seems to me that some authors have turned Lacan into a middle-class esthete -- instead of the genuine radical he was-- by excluding the abject except as vague existential anxiety (which is the luxury of the Master in Kojeve's language.)Somewhere in Ecrits, Lacan talks about this kind of abstraction as domination in the same context I mentioned earlier. Anyway, thanks for letting me participate here.

perfume - 04/06/00 17:38:13 EDT
I think Gina is perfectly right. Get your very personal stuff into your analyst's office...
this is where it belongs.

bri(a)nk - 04/06/00 11:31:35 EDT
it does seem to me all the instances of human abjection posted by a.m. (even movement) are the very stuff of petit a, which is precisely why we get caught in a bind--no matter how we try to run from our desire it persues us, shows up in the most unwanted and compromising abjections, in the driest diagrams and algorithms: i.e., "a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves a repetition of an operation; broadly, a step by step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end esp. by a computer."

Stylus - 04/06/00 08:58:14 EDT
The sticky goo of human enjoyment is entirely appropriate on a Lacanian messageboard.

Gina - 04/06/00 00:41:12 EDT
a.m.
instead of swamping the messageboard in the burden of your private matters you'd be better off consulting your analyst and finding out for yourself.

a.m. - 04/04/00 11:14:59 EDT
bri(a)nk--
.. my point was something much more banal about taste being easily revealed as the product of culture. thank you -- your response made me laugh like hell I once performed oral sex on a friend who was dying of AIDS. (I am male, and usually heterosexual)I held him and we both sobbed from a place that I can't describe.The physical danger in that act was minimal-- that wasn't the point. If this turns out to sound soporific I don't mind : I cannot get past the fact of suffering -- not the Lacanian real-- but the brute reality that we all know, and the endless dance that goes on around me between the imaginary and the symbolic (and resembles Althussers interpellation). There is no Other. There is no petit a. There is flesh, shit, piss, tears, lips, movement, warmth ... The perversion that I just described was a doomed attempt at subverting the movement.. of lingering in the empty space of the split if only for a moment... What might the analyst, big A or small, be able to say to this?

perfume - 04/04/00 01:08:51 EDT
Bri(a)nk is right... in Television Lacan starts out saying: "I always speak the truth, because there's no way to say it all. Saying it all is literally impossible: words fail. Yet it's through this very impossibility that the truth holds onto the real."

bri(a)nk - 04/04/00 00:15:40 EDT
Mark--
Have you seen Lacan in the film Television, or a written transcript of this film? I believe you will find something akin to what you're after there. He asserts there that he can speak the truth, but not all of it. Sound good? Don't know nothing about no Book 11.
Suerte!

mark - 04/03/00 13:00:57 EDT
Does anyone have Book 11? We're on a deadline on a page number for the quote on truth:
'All I can do is tell the truth. No, that isn't so.......'
Thanks for any aid to our too late scholarship!
Mark

bri(a)nk - 04/03/00 00:13:43 EDT
Why SMOOTHNESS is beautiful:

"the application of smooth bodies relax; gentle stroking with a smooth hand allays violent pains and cramps, and relaxes the suffering parts from their unnatural tension; and it has therefore very often no mean effect in removing swelling and obstructions. The sense of feeling is highly gratified with smooth bodies. A bed smoothly laid, and soft, that is, where the resistance is every way inconsiderable, is a great luxury, disposing to an universal relaxation, and inducing beyond anything else, that species called sleep." But say we place Kant supine in Burke's bed and force his head to fall back over the edge until he gurgling, gasping and with its chin pointing at the ceiling. What we hereby bring to the surface would be a repressed always-already, but I'm not sure I would call it either universal or beautiful. Especially if what Nietzche says is true, that the subject for Kant is beautiful; for here we have produced a sujet acephale. The always-already is what appears when beauty, smoothness, is not caressed, but disfigured, stricken through. Because what emerges with the inversion of the face, with the "standing of Kant on his head," is, not to mention the ignominious falling of the wig, summoned from the unconscious. It is something in which we can find no opportunity for ego identification. "And suddenly there is within us," says Proust, "a strange and obscene animal making itself heard, whose tones may inspire as much alarm in the person who receives the involuntary, eliptical and almost irresistable communication of one's defect or vice as would the sudden avowal indirectly and outlandishly proferred by a criminal who can no longer refrain from confessing a murder." As far as I understand, the Truth erupts from us thusly, from the unconscious; it shows us photos of us taken in places "we have never been," in positions we have never assumed, echoing back to us "things we have never said." Remember that the Truth of Speech always comes back to us in its inverted form from the Other. The voice you hear on the tape player is never your own to you, not one you would acknowledge. Now imagine your sincerest wishes and most earnest feelings recorded and played back to you in reverse. Can you hear it? The Truth is out there, but I don't believe it is what is called beautiful.