[Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 38
aline.dubois-dugrenot
aline.dubois-dugrenot at laposte.net
Fri Dec 29 09:37:19 GMT 2006
Cher M. Tassigny,
Nous sommes sensibles à vos efforts pour élargir nos vues étriquées sur la psychanalyse et donner enfin à notre pratique une véritable envergure moderne. Mais nous sommes plusieurs à penser que l'énergie que vous déployez serait mieux accueillie sur une autre liste de discussion. Pourriez-vous prendre cette demande en considération ?
Avec nos remerciements anticipés et cordiaux,
Aline Dubois-Dugrenot
> lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium.
> Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe.
> ---
> Bonsoir,
>
> je me permets de vous rappeler mon objectif :
>
>
> Le Collège d'Analyse Laïque a pour vocation à la fois la mise en place d'un
> outil de travail pour les analystes (et non-analystes) en formation et le
> retour à la pratique et aux interrogations nées de cette pratique pour tous
> les praticiens de l 'analyse, dont la formation n'est d'ailleurs jamais
> achevée. Source : http://users.swing.be/sw271551/accueil.html
>
> ainsi que mon manifeste :
>
> Ne prétendons plus à la neutralité, mais tenons compte de l'efficace
> psychanalytique et de sa résistance, de ses spéculations et stratagèmes,
> interpellons de façon critique, ouvrons des brèches : c'est oeuvrer à la
> psychanalyse .
>
> Faut-il encore soumettre le discours psychanalytique à la rigueur de la
> preuve, aux chaînes de la conséquence, aux contraintes internes du
> collectif ? Faut-il toujours articuler, et, surtout, ne plus ignorer ce que
> certains voudraient laisser tomber ou réduire sous les dogmes de diverses
> chapelles ? Faut-il enfin déterminer la spécificité de l'après-coup
> psychanalytique et de ce qu'elle arraisonne ?
>
> Que propose-t-on à la psychanalyse alors que nous vivons dans un espace
> pluridisciplinaire, global où toutes les valeurs préfabriquées normalisent
> banalisent l'être ? Où des revues, articles, de tout poil, semblent, plus
> qu'informer, nous rendre un amalgame de savoirs qui donnent une impression
> de fadeur, lorsque rivalisant de diagrammes abscons, ils font la statistique
> de leur propre médiocrité telle un "semblant" juste bon à décomposer,
> fragmenter, un tout qui ne sera donc jamais compris exhaustivement.
>
> Jamais l'enseignement de la psychanalyse n'a fait de la psychanalyse une
> recherche "limitée corporativement en en une weltanschaung réservée aux
> seuls initiés". Initiés de l'héritage freudien, lacanien, etc.
>
> Tous les membres du collectif, responsables, intervenants, contribuent à
> élever la psychanalyse en un espace spéculatif, telle une recherche
> fondamentale. On n'y apprend ni des systèmes, ni des cultes, on y reçoit un
> éveil de la pensée dépassant les limites de la psychanalyse pure pour se
> tourner vers l'ethnologie à l'exemple de Frazer ou de Malinowski et dans ce
> pluralisme se dégagent des idées non-dirigistes, des non-certitudes en
> quelque sorte.
>
> Jamais cette recherche ne prendra matrice dans une quelconque corporation,
> guilde, défendant ses droits et privilèges plutôt que la pertinence de ses
> doutes. Cet enseignement ne se développera pas à l'encontre d'autres écoles.
> Telle serait la seule façon de renouer avec la pensée freudienne. Renouer
> avec ces passeurs ne consiste pas à enseigner la psychanalyse, ni même à
> prétendre à réinventer la psychanalyse, mais à penser, réfléchir, à un
> élément même irrationnel au collectif, quitte à déconstruire pour ensuite
> mieux rebâtir, ce qui est vrai pour un est différent pour l'autre.
>
> Bien sûr, c'est l'étude des textes qui sera la pierre angulaire du "Comment
> savoir poser un problème" et à lui donner une solution argumentée,
> raisonnée, en évitant toutefois d'être trop conceptuelle.
>
> Que proposera-t-on à ces enseignants ? Avant tout une méthode car cet
> enseignement n'est pas une entreprise de formation où le collectif
> accouchera d'apprentis sorciers.
>
> Le professeur de psychanalyse commencera la lecture d'une oeuvre freudienne.
> Mais renouer avec l'héritage freudien ne reviendra pas à se prendre soi-même
> pour cette figure originaire de la pensée psychanalytique, mais à devenir ce
> passeur d'idées consistant à comprendre et à faire comprendre leur traversée
> à ce siècle tumultueux.
>
> Vous voyez que je ne cache strictement rien (Kika) et que bien souvent c'est
> grâce à une recherche quotidienne que j'essaie de présenter au groupe
> "Lutécium" des éléments quelque fois issus de ruptures de divers groupes ou
> originaux et inédits et cela affin d'enrichir un débat qui à mon humble
> avis doit dépasser le cadre de mon espace relationnel et professionnel. Je
> crois qu'un lieu de parole peut être également fertile si il est le
> complément d'une cure, que des questions des interrogations laissées
> ouvertes lors de la dite cure doivent trouver une écoute sur cette liste.
>
> cordial
> ft
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 28/12/06, lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org <
> lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org> a écrit :
> >
> > Send Lutecium-group mailing list submissions to
> > lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > lutecium-group-owner at lutecium.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Lutecium-group digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 36
> > (Natalia Milopolsky-Costiou)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:41:30 -0500
> > From: "Natalia Milopolsky-Costiou" <sirano at iname.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 36
> > To: maldoro at ifrance.com, "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse
> > lacanienne" <lutecium-group at lutecium.org>
> > Message-ID: <20061228094130.E266B1158CD at ws1-7.us4.outblaze.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > Cher Frans,
> >
> > Avec tout mon respect pour les engag?s r?unis par la m?me conviction, je
> > me m?fie des unions n?es ? partir de l?opposition aux autres unions. Ca
> > risque toujours de d?gringoler d?une mani?re ? la Orwell. Il n?est pas
> > pour rien que les individus se regroupent : ? je me trouve une famille
> > d?adoption car la mienne m?a rejet?e. ? Pourvu qu?on continue de b?tir
> > les murs et prot?ger ? tout prix son herm?tisme, on ne sortira jamais de
> > cette angoisse li?e du traumatisme de viol, et cela influence, d?apr?s
> > mes observations ? l?ext?rieur de mon cabinet, consid?rablement la
> > qualit? de la pratique clinique. Nous n?avons pas besoin de faire la
> > guerre pour profiter de nos d?couverts respectifs. Par exemple, c?est
> > connu pour beaucoup d?entre nous que la plupart des TCC n?apportent que
> > l?effet temporaire, ce qui n?emp?che pas de leur r?server une belle place
> > de r?ussite dans certains cas. Ce n?est pas un secret non plus que la
> > psychanalyse, elle aussi, conna?t des ?checs, ce qui n?enl?ve pas la
> > moindre goutte de joie dans les cas contraires. Personnellement, les
> > discussions avec les neurologues, biochimistes et psychiatres
> > investissent ?norm?ment dans mes r?flexions professionnelles, et vis
> > versa, selon eux. La psychanalyse personnelle bien aboutie doit justement
> > permettre, ? mon sens, de se d?barrasser d?hyper protection que procure
> > la position d?un ? proph?te de sa patrie. ?
> >
> > Par contre, si votre pratique en profite ? tant mieux, et tout cela n?a
> > aucune importance J
> >
> > Cordialement,
> >
> > Natalia
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Frans Tassigny"
> > To: lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 36
> > Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:50:41 +0100
> >
> >
> > lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium.
> > Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe.
> > ---
> > ch?re amie,
> >
> > Vous me me r?pondez pas sur le fond de mon texte mais vous
> > l'interpr?tez
> > comme si je menait cette qu?te en solitaire, s?rement pas, je me fais
> > au
> > contraire l'?cho d'une multitude d'analysants, il y a bel et bien une
> > commande sociale pour une psychanalyse plurielle hors des castes
> > pr??tablies, c'est d'ailleurs le succ?s des TTC( au d?triment de la
> > psychanalyse ferm?e..),
> >
> > Voici un exemple concret d'avanc?es plurielles :
> >
> > *
> >
> > UNEFPE est une association loi 1901 d'analysants accomplissant leur
> > cure
> > avec un m?me analyste. En exp?rience depuis 1985 elle compl?te le
> > concept du
> > transfert avec l'?l?ment de son rassemblement en commun. Elle marque
> > dans
> > l'histoire de la psychanalyse la phase d'?volution de la m?thode
> > freudienne
> > qui int?gre la psychologie collective
> >
> > UNE Fonction Psychanalytique, Association dite UNEFPE, apr?s avoir
> > form? la
> > technique de psychanalyse plurielle et portant au service des groupes
> > le
> > fruit des travaux poursuivis depuis Freud sur le psychisme,
> > pr?sentera son
> > activit? au Forum R?gional des Associations ? Lyon les 14, 15 & 16
> > Janvier
> > 1989. Elle intitule sa manifestation:
> >
> > vou pouvez y lire la suite sur :
> >
> > http://nfrance.com/~eq12866/miroir/2004/200400605154100_UNEFPE_PLurielANalytique.htm
> >
> >
> > cordial
> > ft
> > *
> > Le 26/12/06, lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org <
> > lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org> a ?crit :
> > >
> > > Send Lutecium-group mailing list submissions to
> > > lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > lutecium-group-owner at lutecium.org
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of Lutecium-group digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > > 1. fake (jp.bienvenu at wanadoo.fr)
> > > 2. Re: Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 34
> > > (Natalia Milopolsky-Costiou)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:47:59 -0300
> > > From: jp.bienvenu at wanadoo.fr
> > > Subject: [Lutecium-group] fake
> > > To: lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > > Message-ID:
> > >
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > something is going wrong
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:39:13 -0500
> > > From: "Natalia Milopolsky-Costiou"
> > > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue
> > 34
> > > To: maldoro at ifrance.com, "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse
> > > lacanienne"
> > > Message-ID: <20061226143913.B2C091F50B1 at ws1-2.us4.outblaze.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A very inspiring speech, Frans, thank you for it.?
> > >
> > > Une des particularit?s de cette attirance des textes de Lacan en
> > Anglais
> > > (comme dans pas mal d?autres langues) c?est que les Anglais ne
> > parleraient
> > > justement pas comme cela. Le discours psychanalytique britannique
> > (ou encore
> > > irlandais) est compl?tement ailleurs ainsi que tous ce que vient
> > avec et ce
> > > que l?inspire. C?est pour cette raison entre autres que votre lutte
> > contre
> > > l?herm?tisme psychanalytique reste si solitaire?: tant que
> > ??l??lite??
> > > existe, il y aura toujours ceux qui voudront y acc?der, n?est-ce
> > pas?? Voil?
> > > pourquoi beaucoup (je crois) entre nous s?occupons des mis en sc?ne
> > de leur
> > > pratique plut?t que des barricades et restent donc dans leurs
> > cabinets.
> > > Apr?s tout, ils sont beaux, nos cabinets, tandis que dehors il fait
> > souvent
> > > froid?
> > >
> > > A ce propos, je vous souhaite une tr?s belle f?te de
> > calendrier?:-))
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Natalia
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Frans Tassigny"
> > > To: lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue
> > 34
> > > Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:36:10 +0100
> > >
> > >
> > > lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium.
> > > Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe.
> > > ---
> > > bonjour,
> > >
> > > Cette version en anglais a ?galement pour but de vous pr?senter le
> > site US
> > > qui l'?dite, je re?ois r?guli?rement leur nouveaut?s et je trouve
> > que
> > > leurs
> > > info sont r?solument diff?rentes que celles publi?es en Europe....
> > >
> > > Si vous d?sirez plus en savoir voyez :
> > > http://www.lacan.com/ericlaurent.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Par ailleurs , voyez : PLoS est une organisation ? but non lucratif
> > des
> > > scientifiques et des m?decins commis ? rendre le monde litt?rature
> > > scientifique et m?dicale une ressource publique librement
> > disponible.
> > > Toutes
> > > nos activit?s sont guid?es par nos principes de
> > > noyau
> > > .
> > >
> > > [image: OUVRIR L'ACCESS]Ouvrir l'Access : Tout que nous ?ditons est
> > > librement accessible en ligne pour que vous lisiez, pour t?l?
> > chargez,
> > > copier, distribuer, et employer (avec l'attribution) n'importe
> > quelle
> > > mani?re vous souhaitez.
> > >
> > > Je crois qu'? l'heure o? la psychanalyse doit s'ouvrir vers les
> > > neurosciences on ne peut plus se contenter de lire Freud uniquement
> > (ou
> > > Lacan), des organisations telles http://www.plos.org/oa/index.html
> > sont
> > > maintenant les nouveaux moteurs du savoir et de la connaissance.
> > J'y
> > > participe activement , j'ai dirig? un mega site produit par l'Open
> > access
> > > financ? par G.Soros cela m'a valu de travaillez avec mobynuke et
> > post
> > > nunke,
> > > le sites que j'ai transform? en e-zine ont re?u une grande
> > affluence.
> > > C'est
> > > donc dans la volont? de continuer sur blog cette philosophie de la
> > > gratuit?
> > > du savoir qu'il faudrait inscrire dans les groupes de
> > psychanalystes.
> > >
> > > FINI LES CHAPELLES DE X Y Z ne r?duisons plus la psychanalyse au
> > plaisir
> > > d'une ?lite, il faut r?solument se diriger vers une ouverture sans
> > bien
> > > sur
> > > pour cela perdre sa sp?cificit?.
> > >
> > > cordial
> > > Frans Tassigny
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr&sl=en&u=http://www.plos.org/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DPLoS%26hl%3Dfr%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
> > > 2006/12/25, ecium.org :
> > > >
> > > > Send Lutecium-group mailing list submissions to
> > > > lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > > >
> > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > >
> > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
> > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > > lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org
> > > >
> > > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > > lutecium-group-owner at lutecium.org
> > > >
> > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> > specific
> > > > than "Re: Contents of Lutecium-group digest..."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Today's Topics:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Re: la suture de J.A Miller ver anglophone (kika)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 1
> > > > Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:05:54 -0200
> > > > From: "kika"
> > > > Subject: Re: [Lutecium-group] la suture de J.A Miller ver
> > anglophone
> > > > To: "Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne"
> > > >
> > > > Message-ID: <000c01c72857$badf2340$8d00fea9 at all.com.br>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > >
> > > > Franz, je m'excuse mais je n'ai pas compris... pourquoi une
> > version en
> > > > anglais?
> > > >
> > > > en tout cas, tout le monde peut avoir son interpr?tation propre
> > de
> > > Lacan.
> > > > et
> > > > on peut discuter sa validit? ou non. mais c'est toujours une
> > > > interpr?tation,
> > > > il ya toujours l'inconscient qui ?tablit les sentiers du su-je.
> > > >
> > > > et je reprends l? des mots parus dans Quarto (Suppl?ment belge ?
> > La
> > > lettre
> > > > mensuelle de l'?cole de la cause freudienne), en 1981: "Ce que
> > notre
> > > > pratique r?v?le, nous r?v?le, c'est que le savoir, savoir
> > inconscient a
> > > un
> > > > rapport avec l'amour." J.Lacan
> > > >
> > > > et il y aurait dans Ornicar? 9 le suivant dialogue entre Miller e
> > Lacan
> > > > qui
> > > > me parait montrer un peu comment op?re ce su-je propre ? chacun
> > des
> > > deux:
> > > >
> > > > "J.-A. M. - Ce serait ? montrer.
> > > >
> > > > J. L. - Ce serait s?rement ? montrer, c'est vrai, mais je ne le
> > > montrerai
> > > > pas ce soir."
> > > >
> > > > alors les ?crits de Miller o? qui que ce soit serviraient juste
> > pour
> > > nous
> > > > faire apprendre que pense-t-il ? partir de son v?cu et sa
> > compr?hension
> > > de
> > > > Lacan. c'est valable, c'est int?ressant, mais ?tre l'au-moins un
> > ? le
> > > lire
> > > > ce n'est pas ?tre Dieu. et c'est ?a ce que je lui reproche.
> > personne n'a
> > > > le
> > > > droit de "syst?matiser", voire asseptiser Lacan, sauf si cel? est
> > fait
> > > > explicitement.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Frans Tassigny"
> > > > To: "lutecium-group"
> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 9:19 AM
> > > > Subject: [Lutecium-group] la suture de J.A Miller ver anglophone
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > lutecium-group: Document interne au Groupe de Travail Lutecium.
> > > > Ne doit pas etre diffuse hors du groupe.
> > > > ---
> > > > No-one without those precise conceptions of analysis which only a
> > > personal
> > > > analysis can provide has any right to concern himself (or
> > herself) with
> > > > it.
> > > > Ladies and Gentlemen, doubtless you fully con- form to the
> > strength of
> > > > that
> > > > ruling by Freud in the *New Introductory Lectures*.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, articulated as a dilemma, a question raises itself foe me
> > in your
> > > > regard.
> > > >
> > > > If, contravening this injunction, it is of psychoanalysis that I
> > am
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > speak, - then. by listening to someone whom you know to be
> > incapable of
> > > > producing the credentials which alone would authorize your
> > assent, what
> > > > are
> > > > you doing here?
> > > >
> > > > Or. if my subject is not psychoanalysis. - then you who so faith-
> > fully
> > > > attend here in order to become conversant with the problems which
> > relate
> > > > to
> > > > the Freudian field, what are you doing here!
> > > >
> > > > And you above all. Ladies and Gentlemen the analysts, what arc
> > you doing
> > > > here. you to whom Freud specifically addressed the warning not to
> > rely
> > > on
> > > > those who are not confirmed in the practice of your science, on
> > those
> > > > so-called authorities, those literary intellectuals, who bring
> > their
> > > soup
> > > > to
> > > > warm at your fire, without so much as recognizing your
> > hospitality? Even
> > > > if
> > > > he who reigns in your kitchens as head-chef could amuse himself
> > by
> > > letting
> > > > someone lower than the lowest kitchen boy get hold of the pot
> > with which
> > > > you
> > > > are so naturally concerned since it is from it that you draw your
> > > > sustenance, it was still uncertain - and I confess that I myself
> > doubted
> > > -
> > > > that you would be ready to drink in a soup merely cooked up in
> > that way.
> > > > And
> > > > yet you are here. Permit me to marvel a moment at your presence,
> > and at
> > > > the
> > > > privilege of your having lent me for a while that most precious
> > of the
> > > > organs at your disposal, your ear.
> > > >
> > > > Which I must now attempt to justify to it, and with reasons which
> > are at
> > > > least admissible.
> > > >
> > > > I will not keep you waiting. The justification lies in this,
> > which will
> > > > come
> > > > as no surprise after the developments which have so enchanted
> > your
> > > hearing
> > > > at this seminar since the start of the academic year, that the
> > Freudian
> > > > field is not representable as a closed surface. The opening up of
> > > > psychoanalysis is not the effect of the liberalism, the whim. the
> > > > blindness
> > > > even of he who has set himself as its guardian. For. if not being
> > > situated
> > > > on the inside does not relegate you to the outside, it is because
> > at a
> > > > certain point, excluded from a two-dimensional topology, the two
> > > surfaces
> > > > join up and the periphery or outer edge crosses over the
> > > circumscription.
> > > >
> > > > That I can recognize and occupy that point is what releases you
> > from the
> > > > dilemma I presented to you. and entitles you to be listening to
> > me
> > > to-day.
> > > > Which will enable you to grasp. Ladies and Gentlemen, to what
> > extent you
> > > > arc
> > > > implicated in my undertaking and how far its successful outcome
> > concerns
> > > > you.
> > > >
> > > > *Concept of the Logic of the Signifier*
> > > >
> > > > What I am aiming to restore, piecing together indications
> > dispersed '
> > > > through the work of Jacques Lacan, is to be designated the logic
> > of the
> > > > signifier - it is a general logic in that its functioning is
> > formal in
> > > > relation to all fields of knowledge including that of
> > psychoanalysis
> > > > which,
> > > > in acquiring a specificity there, it governs; it is a minimal
> > logic in
> > > > that
> > > > within it are given those pieces only which arc necessary to
> > assure it a
> > > > progression reduced to a linear movement, uniformally generated
> > at each
> > > > point of its necessary sequence. That this logic should be called
> > the
> > > > logic
> > > > of the signifier avoids the partiality of the conception which
> > would
> > > limit
> > > > its validity to the field in which it was first produced as a
> > category;
> > > to
> > > > correct its linguistic declension is to prepare the way for its
> > > > importation
> > > > into other discourses, an importation which we will not fail to
> > carry
> > > out
> > > > once we have grasped its essentials here.
> > > >
> > > > The chief advantage to be gained from this process of
> > minimisation is
> > > the
> > > > greatest economy of conceptual expenditure, which is then in
> > danger of
> > > > obscuring to you that the conjunctions which it effects between
> > certain
> > > > functions are so essential that to neglect them is to compromise
> > > analytic
> > > > reasoning proper.
> > > >
> > > > By considering the relationship between this logic and that which
> > I will
> > > > call logician's logic, we see that its particularity lies in the
> > fact
> > > that
> > > > the first treats of the emergence of the second. and should be
> > conceived
> > > > of
> > > > as the logic of the origin of logic - which is to say, chat it
> > docs not
> > > > follow its laws, but that, prescribing their jurisdiction, itself
> > falls
> > > > outside that jurisdiction.
> > > >
> > > > This dimension of the archeological can be grasped most
> > succinctly
> > > through
> > > > a
> > > > movement back from the field of logic itself, where its
> > miscognition. at
> > > > its
> > > > most radical because closest to is recognition is effected.
> > > >
> > > > That this step repeats something of that which Derrida has shown
> > to be
> > > > exemplary to phenomenology
> > > > [1]will
> > > > conceal to none but the most hasty this crucial difference, that
> > here
> > > > miscognition finds its point of departure in the production of
> > meaning.
> > > We
> > > > can say that it is constituted not as a forgetting, but as a
> > repression.
> > > >
> > > > To designate it I choose the name of suture. Suture names the
> > relation
> > > of
> > > > the subject to the chain of its discourse; we shall see that it
> > figures
> > > > there as the clement which is lacking, in the form of a stand-in.
> > For,
> > > > while
> > > > there lacking, it is not purely and simply absent. Suture, by
> > extension
> > > -
> > > > the general relation of lack to the structure - of which it is an
> > > element,
> > > > inasmuch as it implies the position of a taking-the-place-of.
> > > >
> > > > It is the objective of this paper to articulate the concept of
> > suture
> > > > which,
> > > > if it is not named explicitly as such by Jacques Lacan. is
> > constantly
> > > > present in his system.
> > > >
> > > > Let it be absolutely clear that it is not as philosopher or
> > > philosopher's
> > > > apprentice that I am speaking here - if the philosopher is as
> > > > characterized
> > > > by Heinrich Heine in a sentence quoted by Freud, "with his
> > nightcaps and
> > > > the
> > > > tatters of his dressing- gown. patching up the gaps in the
> > structure of
> > > > the
> > > > universe". But take care not to think that the function of
> > suturation is
> > > > peculiar to the philosopher: what is specific to the philosopher
> > is the
> > > > determination of the field in which he operates as a "universal
> > > > structure".
> > > > It is important that you realize that the logician, like the
> > linguist.
> > > > also
> > > > sutures at his particular level. And, quite as much. anyone who
> > says
> > > "I".
> > > >
> > > > In order to grasp suture we must cut across what a discourse
> > makes
> > > > explicit
> > > > of itself, and distinguish from its meaning, its letter. This
> > paper is
> > > > concerned with a letter - a dead letter. It should come as no
> > surprise
> > > if
> > > > the meaning then dies.
> > > >
> > > > The main thread of this analysis will be Gottlob Frege's argument
> > in
> > > > *Grundlagen
> > > > der Arithmetik*,
> > > > [2]crucial
> > > > here because it puts into question those terms which in Peano's
> > > > axiomatic, adequate for a construction of a theory of natural
> > numbers,
> > > are
> > > > taken as primary - that is. the zero, the number, the successor.
> > > > [3]This
> > > > calling into question of the theory, by disintricating, from the
> > > > axiomatic where the theory is consolidated, the suturing,
> > delivers up
> > > this
> > > > last.
> > > >
> > > > *The Zero and the One*
> > > >
> > > > - Here then is the question posed in its most general form;
> > > >
> > > > what is it that functions in the series of whole natural
> > > > numbers to which we can assign their progression?
> > > >
> > > > And the answer, which I shall give at once before establishing
> > it:
> > > >
> > > > in the process of the constitution of the series,
> > > > in the genesis of progression,
> > > > the function of the subjet, miscognized is operative.
> > > >
> > > > This proposition will certainly appear as a paradox to anyone who
> > knows
> > > > that
> > > > the logical discourse of Frege opens with the exclusion of that
> > which is
> > > > held by empiricist theory to be essential for the passage of the
> > thing
> > > to
> > > > the unit, and of the set of units to the unit of number: that is,
> > the
> > > > function of the subject, as support of the operations of
> > abstraction and
> > > > unification.
> > > >
> > > > For the unity which is thus assured both for the individual and
> > the set,
> > > > it
> > > > only holds in so far as the number functions as its name. Whence
> > > > originates
> > > > the ideology which makes of the subject the producer of fictions,
> > short
> > > of
> > > > recognizing it as the product of its product - an ideology in
> > which
> > > > logical
> > > > and psychological discourse are wedded, with political discourse
> > > occupying
> > > > the key position, which can be seen admitted in Occam, concealed
> > in
> > > Locke,
> > > > and miscognized thereafter.
> > > >
> > > > A subject therefore, defined by attributes whose other side is
> > > political,
> > > > disposing as of powers, of a faculty of memory necessary to close
> > the
> > > set
> > > > without the loss of any of the interchangeable elements, and a
> > faculty
> > > of
> > > > repetition which operates inductively. There is no doubt that it
> > is this
> > > > subject which Frege, setting himself from the start against the
> > > empiricist
> > > > foundation of arithmetic. excludes from the field in which the
> > concept
> > > of
> > > > the number is to appear.
> > > >
> > > > But if it is held that the subject is not reducible, in its most
> > > essential
> > > > function, to the psychological, then its exclusion from the field
> > of
> > > > number
> > > > is assimilable to repetition. Which is what I have to
> > demonstrate.
> > > >
> > > > You will be aware that Frege's discourse starts from the
> > fundamental
> > > > system
> > > > comprising the three concepts of the concept, the object and the
> > number,
> > > > and
> > > > two relations, that of the concept to the object, which is called
> > > > subsumption and that of the concept to the number which I will
> > call
> > > > assignation. A number is assigned to a concept which subsumes
> > objects.
> > > >
> > > > What is specifically logical about this system is that each
> > concept is
> > > > only
> > > > defined and exists solely through the relation which it maintains
> > as
> > > > subsumer with that which it subsumes. Similarly, an object only
> > has
> > > > existence in so far as it falls under a concept. there being no
> > other
> > > > determination involved in its logical existence, so that the
> > object
> > > takes
> > > > its meaning from its difference to the thing integrated, by its
> > > > spatio-temporal localization, to the real.
> > > >
> > > > Whence you can see the disappearance of the thing which must be
> > effected
> > > > in
> > > > order for it to appear as object - which is the thing in so far
> > as it is
> > > > one,
> > > >
> > > > It is dear that the concept which operates in the system. formed
> > solely
> > > > through the determination of subsumption, is a redoubled concept:
> > the
> > > > concept of identity to a concept.
> > > >
> > > > This redoubling. induced in the concept by identity, engenders
> > the
> > > logical
> > > > dimension, because in effecting the disappearance of the thing it
> > gives
> > > > rise
> > > > to the emergence of the numerable.
> > > >
> > > > For example, if 1 group what falls under the concept "child of
> > Agamemnon
> > > > and
> > > > Cassandra", I summon in order to subsume them Pelops and
> > Teledamus. To
> > > > this
> > > > set I can only assign a number if I put into play the concept
> > 'identical
> > > > to
> > > > the concept: child of Agamemnon and Cassandra'. Through the
> > effect of
> > > the
> > > > fiction of (his concept, the children now intervene in so far as
> > each
> > > one
> > > > is. so to speak, applied to itself - which transforms it into a
> > unit,
> > > and
> > > > gives to it the status of an object which is numerable as such.
> > It is
> > > this
> > > > one of the singular unit. this one of identity of the subsumed,
> > which is
> > > > common to all numbers in so far as they are first constituted as
> > units.
> > > >
> > > > >From this can be deduced the definition of the assignation of
> > number:
> > > > according to Frege "the number assigned to the concept F is the
> > > extension
> > > > of
> > > > the concept identical to the concept F". Frege's ternary system
> > has as
> > > its
> > > > effect that all that is left to the thing is the support of its
> > identity
> > > > with itself, by which it is the object of the operative concept,
> > and
> > > hence
> > > > numerable.
> > > >
> > > > The process that I have just set out authorizes me to conclude
> > the
> > > > following
> > > > proposition, whose relevance will emerge later, - the unit which
> > could
> > > be
> > > > called unifying of the concept in so far as it is assigned by the
> > number
> > > > is
> > > > subordinate to the unit as distinctive in so far as it supports
> > the
> > > > number.
> > > >
> > > > As for the position of the distinctive unit. its foundation is to
> > be
> > > > situated in the function of identity which, conferring on each
> > thing of
> > > > the
> > > > world the property of being one. effects its transformation into
> > an
> > > object
> > > > of the (logical) concept.
> > > >
> > > > At this point in the construction, you will sense all the
> > importance of
> > > > the
> > > > definition of identity which I am going to present.
> > > >
> > > > This definition which must give its true meaning to the concept
> > of
> > > number,
> > > > must borrow nothing from it
> > > > [4]-
> > > > precisely in order to ^ engender numeration.
> > > >
> > > > _ This definition, which is pivotal to his system. Frege takes
> > from
> > > > Leibniz.
> > > > It is contained in this statement: *eadem sunt quorum unum potest
> > > > substitui
> > > > alteri salva veritate*. Those things are identical of which one
> > can be
> > > > substituted for the other *salva veritate* without loss of truth.
> > > > Doubtless
> > > > you can estimate the crucial importance of what is effected by
> > this
> > > > statement: the emergence of the function of truth. Yet what it
> > assumes
> > > is
> > > > more important than what it expresses. That is,
> > identity-with-itself.
> > > That
> > > > a
> > > > thing cannot be substituted for itself, then where does this
> > leave
> > > truth?
> > > > Absolute is its subversion.
> > > >
> > > > If we follow Leibniz's argument, the failing of truth whose
> > possibility
> > > is
> > > > opened up for an instant, its loss through the substitution for
> > one
> > > thins
> > > > of
> > > > another, would be followed by its immediate reconstitution in a
> > new
> > > > relation: truth is recovered because the substituted thing, in
> > that it
> > > is
> > > > identical with itself, can be the object of a judgement and enter
> > into
> > > the
> > > > order of discourse: identical with itself, it can be articulated.
> > > >
> > > > But that a thing should not be identical with itself subverts the
> > field
> > > of
> > > > truth, ruins it and abolishes it.
> > > >
> > > > You will grasp to what extent the preservation of truth is
> > implicated in
> > > > this identity with itself which connotes the passage from the
> > thing to
> > > the
> > > > object. Identity-with-itself is essential if truth is to be
> > saved.
> > > >
> > > > Truth is. Each thing is identical with Itself.
> > > >
> > > > Let us now put into operation Frege's schema, that is, go through
> > the
> > > > three-stage itinerary which he prescribes to us. Let there be a
> > thing X
> > > of
> > > > the world. Let there be the empirical concept of this X. The
> > concept
> > > which
> > > > finds a place in the schema is not this empirical concept but
> > that which
> > > > redoubles it, being "identical with the concept of X". The object
> > which
> > > > falls under this concept is X itself" as a unit. In this the
> > number,
> > > which
> > > > is the third term of the sequence, to be assigned to the concept
> > of X
> > > will
> > > > be the number 1. Which means that this function of the number 1
> > is
> > > > repetitive for all things of the world. It is in this sense that
> > this 1
> > > is
> > > > only the unit which constitutes the number as such. and not the 1
> > in its
> > > > personal identity as number with its own particular place and a
> > proper
> > > > name
> > > > in the series of numbers.
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore, its construction demands that. in order to transform
> > it. we
> > > > call upon a thing of the world - which, according to Frege.
> > cannot be:
> > > the
> > > > logical must be sustained through nothing but itself.
> > > >
> > > > In order for the number to pass from the repetition of the 1 of
> > the
> > > > identical to that of its ordered succession, in order for the
> > logical
> > > > dimension to gain its autonomy definitively, without any
> > reference to
> > > the
> > > > real, the zero has to appear.
> > > >
> > > > Which appearance is obtained because truth is. Zero is the
> > assigned to
> > > the
> > > > concept "not identical with itself". In effect, let there be the
> > concept
> > > > "not identical with itself". This concept, by virtue of being a
> > concept,
> > > > has
> > > > an extension, subsumes an object. Which object? None. Since truth
> > is, no
> > > > object falls into the place of the subsumed of this concept, and
> > the
> > > > number
> > > > which qualifies its extension is zero.
> > > >
> > > > In this engendering of the zero. I have stressed that it is sup-
> > ported
> > > by
> > > > the proposition that truth is. If no object falls under the
> > concept of
> > > > non-identical-with-itself. it is because truth must be saved. If
> > there
> > > are
> > > > no things which are not identical with them- selves, it is
> > because
> > > > non-identity with itself is contradictory to the very dimension
> > of
> > > truth.
> > > > To
> > > > its concept, we assign the zero. It is this decisive proposition
> > that
> > > the
> > > > concept of not-ldentical-with- itself is assigned by the number
> > zero
> > > which
> > > > sutures logical discourse.
> > > >
> > > > For, and here I am working across Frege's text. in the auto-
> > nomous
> > > > construction of the logical through itself, it has been
> > necessary, in
> > > > order
> > > > to exclude any reference to the real, to evoke on the level of
> > the
> > > concept
> > > > an object not-identical-with-itself - to be subsequently rejected
> > from
> > > the
> > > > dimension of truth.
> > > >
> > > > The zero which is inscribed in the place of the number con-
> > summates the
> > > > exclusion of this object. As for this place, marked out by
> > subsumption,
> > > in
> > > > which the object is lacking, there nothing can be written, and if
> > a o
> > > must
> > > > be traced, it is merely in order to figure a blank, to render
> > visible
> > > the
> > > > lack.
> > > >
> > > > >From the zero lack to the zero number, the non-conceptualisable
> > is
> > > > conceptualized.
> > > >
> > > > Let us now set aside the zero lack in order to consider only that
> > which
> > > is
> > > > produced by the alternation of its evocation and its revocation,
> > the
> > > zero
> > > > number.
> > > >
> > > > The zero understood as a number, which assigns to the subsuming
> > concept
> > > > the
> > > > lack of an object, is as such a thing - the first non-real thing
> > in
> > > > thought.
> > > >
> > > > If of the number zero we construct the concept, it subsumes as
> > its sole
> > > > object the number zero. The number which assigns it is therefore
> > 1.
> > > >
> > > > Frege's system works by the circulation of an element, at each of
> > the
> > > > places
> > > > it fixes: from the number zero to its concept, from this concept
> > to its
> > > > object and to its number - a circulation which produces the 1.
> > > > [5]This
> > > > system is thus so constituted with the o counting as 1. The
> > counting
> > > > of
> > > > the 0 as 1 (whereas the concept of, the zero subsumes nothing in
> > the
> > > real
> > > > but a blank) is the general support of the series of numbers.
> > > >
> > > > It is this which is demonstrated by Frege's analysis of the
> > operation of
> > > > the
> > > > successor, which consists of obtaining the number which follows n
> > by
> > > > adding
> > > > to it a unit: n' the successor of n, is equal to n + 1, that is,
> > ...
> > > n...
> > > > (n
> > > > + 1) = n'... Frege opens out the n + 1 in order to discover what
> > is
> > > > involved
> > > > in the passage from n to its successor.
> > > >
> > > > You will grasp the paradox of this engendering as soon as I
> > produce the
> > > > most
> > > > general formula for the successor which Frege arrives at: the
> > Number
> > > > assigned to the concept "member of the series of natural numbers
> > ending
> > > > with
> > > > n" follows in the series of natural numbers directly after n'.
> > > >
> > > > Let us take a number. The number three. It will serve to
> > constitute the
> > > > concept "member of the series of natural numbers ending with
> > three". We
> > > > find
> > > > that the number assigned to this concept is four. Here then is
> > the 1 of
> > > n
> > > > +
> > > > 1. Where does it come from? Assigned to its redoubled concept,
> > the
> > > number
> > > > 3
> > > > functions as the unifying name of a set: as reserve. In the
> > concept of'
> > > > member of the series of natural numbers ending with 3", it is the
> > term
> > > (in
> > > > the sense both of element and of final element).
> > > >
> > > > In the order of the real. the 3 subsumes 3 objects. In the order
> > of
> > > > number,
> > > > which is that of discourse bound by truth, it is numbers which
> > are
> > > > counted:
> > > > before the 3, there are 3 numbers - it is therefore the fourth.
> > > >
> > > > In the order of number, there if an addition the 0 and the 0
> > counts for
> > > 1.
> > > > The displacement of a number, from the function of reserve to
> > that of
> > > > term,
> > > > implies the summation of the 0. Whence the successor. That which
> > in the
> > > > real
> > > > is pure and simple absence finds itself through the fact of
> > number
> > > > (through
> > > > the instance of truth) noted o and counted for 1.
> > > >
> > > > Which is why we say the object not-identical with itself
> > > invoked-rejected
> > > > by
> > > > truth, instituted-annulled by discourse (subsumption as such) -
> > in a
> > > word,
> > > > sutured.
> > > >
> > > > The emergence of the lack as 0, and of 0 as 1 determines the
> > appearance
> > > of
> > > > the successor. Let there be n; the lack is fixed as which is
> > fixed as 1:
> > > n
> > > > +
> > > > 1; which is added in order to give n' - which absorbs the 1.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly, if the Lot n + 1 is nothing other than the counting
> > the zero,
> > > > the
> > > > function of addition of the sign + is superfat1ory, and we must
> > restore
> > > to
> > > > the horizontal representation of the engendering its verticality:
> > the 1
> > > is
> > > > to be taken as the primary symbol of the emergence of lack in the
> > field
> > > of
> > > > truth, and the sign + indicates the crossing, the transgression
> > through
> > > > which the 0 lack comes to be represented as 1, producing, through
> > this
> > > > difference of n to n' which you have seen to be an effect of
> > meaning the
> > > > name of a number.
> > > >
> > > > Logical representation collapses this three-level construction.
> > The
> > > > operation I have effected opens it out. If you consider the
> > opposition
> > > of
> > > > these two axes, you will understand what is at stake in logical
> > > suturing,
> > > > and the difference of the logic which I am putting forward to
> > logician's
> > > > logic.
> > > >
> > > > That zero is a number: such is the proposition which assures
> > logical
> > > > dimension of its closure.
> > > >
> > > > Our purpose has been to recognize in the zero number the suturing
> > > stand-in
> > > > for the lack.
> > > >
> > > > Remember here the hesitation perpetuated in the work of Bertand
> > Russell
> > > > concerning its localization (interior? or exterior to the series
> > of
> > > > numbers?).
> > > >
> > > > The generating repetition of the series of numbers is sustained
> > by this,
> > > > that the zero lack passes, first along a vertical axis, across
> > the bar
> > > > which
> > > > limits the field of truth in order to be represented there as
> > one,
> > > > subsequently cancelling out as meaning in each of the names of
> > the
> > > numbers
> > > > which are caught up in the metonymic chain of successional
> > progression.
> > > >
> > > > Just as the zero as lack of the contradictory object must be
> > > distinguished
> > > > from that which sutures this absence in the series of numbers, so
> > the 1.
> > > > as
> > > > the proper name of a number, is to be distinguished from that
> > which
> > > comes
> > > > to
> > > > fix in a trait the zero of the not-identical with itself sutured
> > by the
> > > > identity with itself, which is the law of discourse in the field
> > of
> > > truth.
> > > > The central paradox to be grasped (which as you will see in a
> > moment is
> > > > the
> > > > paradox of the signifier in the sense of Lacan) is that the trait
> > of the
> > > > identical represents the non-identical, whence is deduced the
> > > > impossibility
> > > > of its redoubling,
> > > > [6]and from
> > > > that impossibility the structure of repetition, as the process of
> > > > differentiation of the identical.
> > > >
> > > > Now, if the series of numbers, metonymy of the zero, begins with
> > its
> > > > metaphor, if the o member of the series as number is only the
> > > > standing-in-place suturing the absence (of the absolute zero)
> > which
> > > moves
> > > > beneath the chain according to the alternation of a
> > representation and
> > > an
> > > > exclusion - then what is there to stop us from seeing in the
> > restored
> > > > relation of the zero to the series of numbers the most elementary
> > > > articulation of the subject's relation to the signifying chain?
> > > >
> > > > The impossible object, which the discourse of logic summons as
> > the
> > > > not-identical with itself and then rejects as the pure negative,
> > which
> > > it
> > > > summons and rejects in order to constitute itself as that which
> > it is,
> > > > which
> > > > it summons and rejects wanting to know nothing of it, we name
> > this
> > > object,
> > > > in so far as it functions as the excess which operates in the
> > series of
> > > > numbers, the subject.
> > > >
> > > > Its exclusion from the discourse which internally it intimates is
> > > suture.
> > > >
> > > > If we now determine the trail as the signifier, and ascribe to
> > the
> > > number
> > > > the position of signified, the relation of lack to the trait
> > should be
> > > > considered as the logic of the signifier.
> > > >
> > > > *Relation of Subject and Signifier*
> > > >
> > > > In effect, what in Lacanian algebra is called the relation of the
> > > subject
> > > > to
> > > > the field of the Other (as the locus of truth) can be identified
> > with
> > > the
> > > > relation which the zero entertains with the identity of the
> > unique as
> > > the
> > > > support of truth. This relation, in so far as it is matrical,
> > cannot be
> > > > integrated into any definition of objectivity - this being the
> > doctrine
> > > of
> > > > Lacan. The engendering of the zero. from this not-identical with
> > itself
> > > > under which no thing of the world falls, illustrates this to you.
> > > >
> > > > What constitutes this relation as the matrix of the chain must be
> > > isolated
> > > > in the implication which makes the determinant of ( exclusion of
> > the
> > > > subject
> > > > outside the field of the Other its representation in that field
> > in the
> > > > form
> > > > of the one of the unique. one of distinctive unity, which is
> > called
> > > > "unary"
> > > > by Lacan. In algebra, this exclusion is marked by the bar which
> > strikes
> > > > the
> > > > S of the subject in from of the capital A, and which is displaced
> > by the
> > > > identity of the subject onto the A, according to the fundamental
> > > exchange
> > > > of
> > > > the logic of the signifier, a displacement whose effect is the
> > emergence
> > > > of
> > > > signification signified to the subject. Untouched by the exchange
> > of the
> > > > bar, this exteriority of the subject to the Other is maintained,
> > which
> > > > institutes the unconscious.
> > > >
> > > > For: - if it is clear that the tripartition which divides (1) the
> > > > signified-to-the-subject, (2) the signifying chain whose radical
> > > alterity
> > > > in
> > > > relation to the subject cuts off the subject from its field, and
> > finally
> > > > (3)
> > > > the external field of this reject, cannot be covered by the
> > linguistic
> > > > dichotomy of signified and signifier; - if the consciousness of
> > the
> > > > subject
> > > > is to be situated on the level of the effects of signification,
> > > governed,
> > > > so
> > > > much so that they could even be called its reflections, by the
> > > repetition
> > > > of
> > > > the signifier: - if repetition itself is produced by the
> > vanishing of
> > > the
> > > > subject and its passage as lack - then only the unconscious can
> > name the
> > > > progression which constitutes the chain in the order of thought.
> > > >
> > > > On the level of this constitution, the definition of the subject
> > comes
> > > > down
> > > > to the possibility o/ one signifier more.
> > > >
> > > > Is it not ultimately to this function of excess that can be
> > referred the
> > > > power of thematisation, which Dedekind assigns to the subject in
> > order
> > > to
> > > > give to set theory its theorem of existence? The possibility of
> > > existence
> > > > of
> > > > an enumerable infinity can be explained by this, that "from the
> > moment
> > > > that
> > > > one proposition is true, 1 can always produce a second, that is,
> > that
> > > the
> > > > first is true and so on to infinity".
> > > > [7]
> > > >
> > > > In order to ensure that this recourse to the subject as the
> > founder of
> > > > iteration is not a recourse to psychology, we simply substitute
> > for
> > > > thematisation the representation of the subject (as signifier)
> > which
> > > > excludes consciousness because it is not effected for someone,
> > but, in
> > > the
> > > > chain, in the field of truth, for the signifier which precedes
> > it. When
> > > > Lacan faces the definition of the sign as that which represents
> > > something
> > > > for someone, with that of the signifier as that which represents
> > the
> > > > subject
> > > > for another signifier. he is stressing that in so far as the
> > signifying
> > > > chain is concerned, it is on the level of its effects and not of
> > its
> > > cause
> > > > that consciousness is to be situated. The insertion of the
> > subject into
> > > > the
> > > > chain is representation, necessarily correlative to an exclusion
> > which
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > vanishing.
> > > >
> > > > If now we were to try and develop in time the relation which
> > engenders
> > > and
> > > > supports the signifying chain, we would have to take into account
> > the
> > > fact
> > > > that temporal succession is under the dependency of the linearity
> > of the
> > > > chain. The time of engendering can only be circular - which is
> > why both
> > > > these propositions are true at one and the same time. that
> > subject is
> > > > anterior to signifier and that signifier is anterior to subject -
> > but
> > > only
> > > > appears as such after the introduction of the signifier. The
> > retroaction
> > > > consists essentially of this: the birth of linear time. We must
> > hold
> > > > together the definitions which make the subject the effect of the
> > > > signifier
> > > > and the signifier the representative of the subject: it is a
> > circular.
> > > > though non-reciprocal, relation.
> > > >
> > > > By crossing logical discourse at its point of least resistance,
> > that of
> > > > its
> > > > suture, you can see articulated the structure of the subject: as
> > a
> > > > "flickering in eclipses", like the movement which opens and
> > closes the
> > > > number, and delivers up the lack in the form of the 1 in order to
> > > abolish
> > > > it
> > > > in the successor.
> > > >
> > > > As for the +. you have understood the unprecedented function
> > which it
> > > > takes
> > > > on in the logic of the signifier (a sign, no longer of addition,
> > but of
> > > > that
> > > > summation of the subject in the field of the Other, which calls
> > for its
> > > > annulment). It remains to disarticulate it in order to separate
> > the
> > > unary
> > > > trait of emergence, and the bar of the reject: thereby making
> > manifest
> > > the
> > > > division of the subject which is the other name for its
> > alienation.
> > > >
> > > > It will be deduced from this that the signifying chain is
> > structure of
> > > the
> > > > structure.
> > > >
> > > > If structural causality (causality in the structure in so far as
> > the
> > > > subject
> > > > is implicated in it) is not an empty expression, it is from the
> > minimal
> > > > logic which I have developed here that it will find its status.
> > > >
> > > > We leave for another time the construction of its concept.
> > > >
> > > > *Notes:*
> > > >
> > > > [1] Edmund
> > > > Husserl, *L'origine de la g?ometrie*, translation and
> > introduction by
> > > > Jacques Derrida, PUF, 1962.
> > > >
> > > > [2] German
> > > > text with English translation published under the title *The
> > Foundations
> > > > of
> > > > Arithmetic*, Basil Blackwell, 1953.
> > > >
> > > > [3] Our
> > > > reading will not concern itself with any of Frege'g various
> > inflections
> > > of
> > > > his basic purpose, and will therefore keep outside the
> > thematisation of
> > > > the
> > > > difference of meaning and reference, as well as of the later
> > definition
> > > of
> > > > the concept in terms of predication, from which is deduced its
> > > > non-saturation.
> > > >
> > > > [4] Which
> > > > is
> > > > why we must say identity and not equality.
> > > >
> > > > [5] I leave
> > > > aside the commentary of paragraph 76 which gives the abstract
> > definition
> > > > of
> > > > contiguity.
> > > >
> > > > [6] And, at
> > > > another level, the impossibility of meta-language (cf by Jacques
> > > > Lacan, *Cahiers
> > > > pour 1'analyse*, No I, 1966).
> > > >
> > > > [7]
> > > > Dedekind,
> > > > quoted by Cavailles (*Philosophie math?mathique*, p 124, Hermann,
> > 1962).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > This text was published in French in *Cahiers pour l'analyse* 1,
> > Winter
> > > > 1966, subsequently its English version translated by Jacqueline
> > Rose
> > > > appeared in *Screen* 18, Winter 1978.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (c) lacan.com 1997/2006
> > > > Copyright Notice. Please respect the fact that this material in
> > > LACAN.COMis
> > > > copyright.
> > > > Available only through EBSCO Publishing. Inc.
> > > > It is made available here without charge for personal use only.
> > It may
> > > not
> > > > be stored, displayed, published, reproduced, or used for any
> > other
> > > > purpose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tassigny Frans
> > > > Sint Fransiscusstraat 25
> > > > 8400 Ostende
> > > > BELGIQUE
> > > > 0496 85 56 82
> > > >
> > > > nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org
> > > > Lutecium-group mailing list
> > > > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > > >
> > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Lutecium-group mailing list
> > > > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > > >
> > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > End of Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 34
> > > > **********************************************
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tassigny Frans
> > > Sint Fransiscusstraat 25
> > > 8400 Ostende
> > > BELGIQUE
> > > 0496 85 56 82
> > >
> > > nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org
> > > Lutecium-group mailing list
> > > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ___________________________________________________
> > > Search for products and services at:
> > > http://search.mail.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Lutecium-group mailing list
> > > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
> > >
> > >
> > > End of Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 36
> > > **********************************************
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tassigny Frans
> > Sint Fransiscusstraat 25
> > 8400 Ostende
> > BELGIQUE
> > 0496 85 56 82
> >
> > nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/
> > _______________________________________________
> > A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org
> > Lutecium-group mailing list
> > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
> >
> > --
> > ___________________________________________________
> > Search for products and services at:
> > http://search.mail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lutecium-group mailing list
> > Lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> > http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
> >
> >
> > End of Lutecium-group Digest, Vol 25, Issue 38
> > **********************************************
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tassigny Frans
> Sint Fransiscusstraat 25
> 8400 Ostende
> BELGIQUE
> 0496 85 56 82
>
> nv site : www.qwarkpsy.eur.st/
> _______________________________________________
> A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org
> Lutecium-group mailing list
> Lutecium-group at lutecium.org
> http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group
>
Envoyez vos cartes de voeux depuis www.laposte.net
Elles seront ensuite distribuées par le facteur : pratique et malin !
More information about the Lutecium-group
mailing list