To begin with, this is because the three consistencies of the Real, the Symbolic, and the Imaginary are knotted:  we do not have the symbolic and the imaginary, conjoined by the fantasy, on one side, and the real of jouisssance, which would be inert and unattainable, on the other. In fact, it is wholly a question of knowing what knots them, and especially if the symbolic does not allow what Lacan for a long time called the Name-of-the-Father to accomplish its normalizing function. We are constituted, particularly in Joyce’s case, insofar as a “fastener Ego” (“Ego de raboutage”) can perform the function of the Name-of-the-Father. It is moreover quite striking to see little-by-little worn-out terms, like the Ego and the defenses, return to Lacan’s mouth with a new valency.

[...]