lacan - position of the unconscious

7/23/2019 Lacan - Position of the Unconscious

1/19

Position

of

the Unconscious

emarks made at II/ : 1960 BonncJ'al Colloquium, rewn tten in 1961

Ilenri

Ey

-thanks to his authority which has made him rhe most influcmial

figure in French psyd1iatric circles-brought together in his wanl at

Bon

neval Hospital a vcry broad spectrum

of

specialists around the theme

of me

Freudian unt:on::.cious (October

30 t

November 2,19(0).

111e lalk given by my s U d > n t ~ Laplam:hc and Lcdairt'

promoted

O l Ihe

colloquium a conception

of

my work which, since the talk was publishc(1 in

t e m p ~ modemes,

has become

dcftnithe,

despite the divergence between

their positions that

wa::.

manifested

thtTein.

Intcr.,'cntions milde at a colloquium,

when

there is

something at

stake in

the debate, sometimes require a good deal

of

commentary

to

be situated.

And

onu all the papers given there have bef>n thoroughly rewritu.:n, (he

t a ~ k b e c o m e ~ an arduous one.

interest wanes, moreover, with the time

it

takes to rcwrite them, for

one WOIJld have to n pbce it with what takes place (luring that time consid

ered as logic


2/19

F.cnts

There

may be phenomena that are subsumed by the unconscious accord

ing to both of these acceptations; the latter remain no less foreign

to

each

odler. The only relation between them is one

of

homonymy.

The

importance I attribute to language

as

the cause of the subject requires

that I be more spccific: aberrations abound when the concept unconscious

is depreciated by being applied d lihitum

to

phenomena that can be classified

under the homonymous species.

t

is unthinkable that the concept might be

restored on the bm:iis of these phenomena.

Let me specify my own position concerning the equivocation to which the

is and is not of my initial positions might give rise.

The unconscious is what I say it is assuming we are willing

to

hear what

Freud puts forward in his theses.

Saying dlat for Freud the unconscious

is

no what goes by that name in

other contexts would be of little value

if

what I meant were not grasped: the

unconscious, prior to Freud, is not purely and simply. This is because it names

nothing [prior to Freud] that counts any more as an

object-nor

warrant:;

being granted any more existence-than what would be defined by situating

it in the un-black

[rin TWirl

The

unconscious before Freud has no more consistency than this un

black- namely, die set

of

what could be classified according

to

the various

meanings

of

the word black, by dint

of

its refusa1 of the attribute (or

virtue)

of

blackness (whether physical

or

moral).

\Vhat, indeed, could the following possibly have in common- to take the

eight definitions collated by Dwclshauvcrs

in

a book that is old (1916), but

not so far out-of-date that, were such a catalogue

to

be prepared anew today,

its heterogeneity would not

be

diminished: the sensory unconscious (implied

831 by the so-called optical effects ofcontrast and illusion); the automatic uncon

scious developed by habit; the co-consciousness (?) of split personalities;

ideational emergences of a latent activity that appears in creative thought

as

if it were oriented, and telepathy which certain people would like to relate to

such thought; the learned and even integrated reserves

of

memory; the pas

sions in our character which get the better of us; the heredity that is recog

nized in

our

natural gifts; and finally the rational

or

metaphysical unconscious

that is implied by 'mental acts ?

(None

of

them can be grouped together, except c o n u s e d l y ~ because

of

what psychoanalysts have added by way of obscurantism in failing to distin

guish the unconscious from instinct, or, as dley say, [rom the instinctual- dle

archaic or primordial, succumbing thereby

to

an illusion decisively dispelled

by Claude Levi-Strauss-and even from the genetic character

of

a supposed

development.

)


3/19

Position

of

the Cnconsc1OUS

My

claim is that they have nothing in common

if

one grounds oneself in

p:sydlological objectivity, even if the lauer

is

derived by extension from dle

schemas

of

psychopathology, and

rhm

this chaos merely reflects p:sychol

ogy s central error.

This

error consists in taking the very phenomenon

of

consciousness t be unitary, speaking of the same consciousness-believed

to

be a synthetic faculty-

in

the illuminated area

of

a sensory field,

in

the

arrent ion that transforms it, in the dialectic of judgment, and in ordinary day

dreaming.

This error is based on the undue transfer t these phenomena of

the

value

of

a thought experiment that uses them

as

examples.

The

Cartesian cogilo

is

the

mCijor,

and perhaps terminal, feat

of

this exper

iment

in

that it attains knowledge cenainty.

Bur

it merely indicates all the

more clearly just how privileged the moment upon which ir is based is, and

how fraudulent it is r extend its privilege to phenomena endowed with con

sciousness,

in

order to grant them a status.

For science, the

cogito

marks, on the contrary, the break with every assur

ance conditioned by intuition.

And the much sought-after recherchie] latency

of

this fimnding moment,

as

elhsthewusslsein

[sdf-consciou:snessl, in the dialectical sequence

of

Hegel s phenomenology

of

mind, is hased upon the presupposition

of

absolute knowledge.

Everything, on the contrary, points to the distribution

of

consciou:sness

in

psychical reality - -however the latter s texture is ordered- that dbtribution

being heterotopic

in

terms

of

levels and erratic at each lcvel.

The

only homogeneous function

of

consciousness

is

found

in

the ego s

832

imaginary capture by its specular reflection, and

in

rhe function

of

misrecog-

nition that remains tied to it.

fhe negation inherenr in psychology in this regard should rather, following

Ilegel, be chalked up t the law

of tilC

heart and the frenzy

of

self-conceit.

The

credit granted to this perpetuated presumption, t consider only wh lt

it receives by

way

of

scientific honors, raises the question

of

where its v tlue

is situated; it caollot come down

to

the mere publication ofmore or less copi

ous treatises.

Psychology transmits ideals: the psyche therein no longer represents any

thing but the sponsorship that makes

it

qualify as academic. Ideals are society s

slaves.

A cert


4/19

f..cots

sustain consumption the

US.A.

psydlology enlisted, enlisting Freud

along W'ith it, to remind the half of the population most exposed to business'

goal that women only realize their potential through gender ideals (see Betty

Friedan on the concerted effort

to

create a feminine mystique in that prn ;t-

war decade).

Perhaps psychology reveals, through this ironic channel, why it has

always subsisted. But scientists may recall that the ethics implicit in their

training commands them

to

refuse all such blatant ideology. The unconscious

as

understood by psychologists is thus debilitating for thought, due to the

very credence thought must lend it in order

to

argue against it.

Now

the debates that have taken place during this colloquium have been

remarkable in that they have constantly turned to the Freudian concept

in

all

its difficulry, and have derived their very strength from this difficulty.

This is remarkable inasmuch as psychoanalysts' only endeavor, in today's

world, is to enter psychology's ranks. The aversion everyrlling coming from

Freud meets with in their community has been plainly avowed, especially by

a subset

of

the psychoanalysts present.

This fact cannot be excluded from the examination

of

the issue at hand.

8 No

more than can another fact: that it is due to my teaching that this collo

quium has reversed the trend. I am saying this not merely to make mention of

the fact-many have done so--but also to note that this obliges me to

account for the paths I have followed.

\X'hat psychoanalysis finds itself enjoined

to

do when it returns to the fold

of general psychology is to sustain what deserves to be exposed- right

here and not in the far-off realms of our former

colonies-as

primitive men

tality. For the kind of interest that psychology comes to serve in our present

society, ofwhich have given an idea, finds therein its advantage.

Psychoanalysis thus underwrites it by furnishing an astrology that

is

more

decent than the one to which our society continues to surreptitiously sacrifice.

I thus consider justified the prejudice psychoanalysis encounters in East

ern Europe.

t

was up

to

psychoanalysis not

to

deserve that prejudice, as it

was possible that, presented with the test of different social exigencies, psy

choanalysis might have proved less tractable had it received harsher treat

ment. gauge that on the basis of my own position in psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalysis would have done better to examine its ethics and learn

from the study of theology, following a path indicated by Freud

as

unavoid

able. At the very least, its deontology in science should make

it

realize that

it

is responsible for the presence of the unconscious in this field.

This function was served by my students at this colloquium, and I con

tributed thereto in accordance with the medlod that I have constantly


5/19

Position

of

me Unconscious

7

7

adopted on such occasions, situating each in his position

in

relalion

to

the

subject.

The

main axis is indicated clearly enough in the written responses.

It

would be ofsome interest, if only to the historian, to have the tnmscripts

of

the talks actually given, even if they were cut where blanks

a p p ~ t r e d

due

to

defects

in

rlle recording devices.

They

underscore the absence

oflle

whose

services

e s i g n ~ t e d

him as the person who could Ilighligln with the greatest

tact and accuracy Ihe detours

of

a moment of combat in a place where ideas

were exchanged-his connections, his culture, and even his social savvy

allowing him

to

understand better

t h ~ l n ~ m y o n

else the recordings with

their intonations. His failure a l r e ~ t d y ensconced him in the good graces of

defection.

I will stop deploring the opporrunity that was missed, everyone having

since taken ample advantage

of

a rime-worn practice, carefully reworking his

834

presentation. I will take the opportunity

1

expl

.

in my pre;ent doctrine of the

unconscious,

all

the more legitimately as

rbe

resistances

of

a peculiar alloca-

tion

of

roles impeded me from saying more about it at the colloquium.

This consideration is not political,

but

technical.

It

is related TO the follow

ing condition, established by my doctrine: psychoanalysts are paT and parcel

of the concept

of

the unconscious, as they constihue that to which Ihe uncon

scious

is addressed. I thus cannot but include my discourse on the uncon

scious in the very (hesis it enunciates: the presencc

of

the unconsc ious, being

situ


6/19

J 8

tcrits

filling his role (fostering the patient's discourse, restoring its meaning effect,

putting himself on the line t


7/19

Position

of

the Unconscious

JO 9

is the constitutive fading* of his identification. This is the first movement.

Hut

in the second, desire bedding down

in

the signif}ring cut in which

metonymy occurs, the diachrony (called "history") that was inscribed in fad

ing-- rehlrns t the kind of fixity Freud grants unconscious wishes (see the

last sentence of the Traumdeutung [The fnterpretation

~ D r e a m s ] ) .

This secondary subornation not only closes the effect of the first by pro-

83

6

jeering the topology of the subject into the instant of fantasy; it seals it, refus-

ing to allow the subject

of

desire to realize that he is

an

effect of speech, to

realize, in other words, what he is in being but the Other 's desire.

This is why any discourse is v.rithin its rights to consider itself not respon

sible

for this effect. Any discourse except that of the teacher when he

addresses psychoanalysts.

I have always considered myself accountable for such an

efICct,

and, while

unequal

t

the

ta. k

ofguarding against it f y parer], it was the secret prowess

of each of my "seminars."

For the people who come to hear me are not the first communicants Plato

exposed t Socrates' questioning.

The

fact that the "secondary" they come out of must be doubled with a

preparatory, says enough about its shortcomings and superfluities. Of their

"philosophy [classes]," most have retai ned but a grab-bag of phrases- a cat

echism gone haywire- which anaestherizes them from being surprised by

truth.

They are thus even more easily preyed upon by prestige operations, and

by the ideals of high personalism by which civilization presses them to live

beyond their means.

Intellectual means, that is.

The ideal of authority with which the analytic candidate who is a physi

cian falls in; the public opinion pol with which the mediator of relational

impasses lets himself off the hook; the meaning of meaning* in which every

quest finds its alibi; phenomenology, a lap that awaits whatever may fall into

it- the range is vast and the dispersion great at the outset

of

an ordered

obtuseness.

Resistance, equal in its denial effect despite Hegel and Freud, unhappy

consciousness and discontent in civilization.

A KOlvr of subjectification underpins resistance, which objeLtifies the

false evi(lcnce of the ego and routes every proof away from certainty and

towards endless procrastination. (Should Tbe opposed by an appeal t Marx

ists,

Catholics, or even Freudians, I promise to request a roll call.)

This is why only the kind of teaching that gJ;nds up this

KOLvtl

can trace

out the path

of

what

is

known as "training analysis"

[ana yse didactiljuel,

for


8/19

71

Ecrits

the results of analytic experience are distorted by the vcry fact of being

inscribed in this

KOlvrj

837

This

doctrinal contribution has a name-it is, quite simply, scientific

spirit ; that spirit is altogether lacking in the places where psychoanalysts arc

recruited.

1 ly

teaching is anathema in that it is inscribed in this truth.

The objection that has been raised, concerning the impact of my teaching

on

the transference

of

analysts in training, will make future analysts laugh,

if

thanks to me, there are still analysIs for whom Freud exists. l:3ut what

it

proves is the absence

of

any doctrine

of

training analysis that includes the lat

ter's relations with the affirmation of the unconscious.

Tt will

thus be understood that my use

ofHegd's

phenomenology bore no

allegiance

to

his system, but was intended as an example with which to

counter the obvious fact

of

identification. t is in the way in which one con

ducts an examination

of

a patient and draws

one's

conclusions that a critique

of

intellectual fables is proposed. It is by not avoiding the ethical implications

of

our praxis for deontology and scientific debate that

the

beautiful soul will

be unmasked_ The law

of

the heart, as I have said, is a bigger nuisance than

paranoia_

It

is

the

law

of

a ruse which, in the clmning

[ruse] of

reason, traces

out

a meander whose current is seriously slowed_

Beyond that, the statements Hegel makes, even

if one

sticks

to

the text,

provide the opportunity

to

always say something Other_ Something

Other

which corrects their fantasmatic link with synthesis, while preserving the

effect they have

of

exposing the lures

of

identification_

That is my

Aufoehung

[sublation], which transforms Hegel's (his own

lure) into an occasion to point out in lieu and place of the leaps

of

an ideal

progress -the avatars

of

a lack.

To

confirm the function

of

this point

of

lack, nothing is better, after that,

than Plato's dialogue, insofar as it comes under

the

genre

of

comedy, does not

shy away from indicating the point at which

one

can do nothing but oppose the

marionette's

mask

to

wooden insults, and remains stone-faced

through

the

centuries, rooted

to

a hoax, waiting for someone

to

find a better hold than

the

one

it dings

to

in its judo match with

the

truth_

This

is why Freud

is

a guest

one

can risk inviting impromptu to the Sym-

posium

if

only

on

the basis of the short note in which he indicates what he

owes to its clear-sightedness concerning love, and perhaps to the tranquillity

83

8

of

its view

of

transference_ He is probably the kind of man who would revive

its bacchant lines, which no

one

remembers hav1ng said after the drunkenness_

My seminar was not

where

it speaks

[l ou

fa parle]

as people happened

to

say jokingly.

t

brought

forth

the

place

from which it could speak, opening


9/19

Position

of

the Unconscious

7 1

mOre

than one car

to

heat things that would have been passed over indiffer

ently since they would not haye been recognizcd.

One of

my auditors put this

naively, announcing the marvelous fact that, tilat very evening,

or

perhaps

just the day before, he had come across in a session with a patient

what]

had

said in my

seminar-verbatim.

The

place in question is the entrance

to

the cave, towards the exir

of

which

Plato guides us, while one imagines seeing the psychoanalyst entering there.

But things arc nor that easy,

as ir is

all entrance one can only reach just as

it

closes (the place will never be popular with tourists), and the only way for if

to open

up

a bit is by calling from the inside.

This is not unsolvable-assum ing the open sesame of the unconscious

consists in having speech effects, since it is linguistic in structure- but

requires that the analyst reexamine the way in which it closes.

\Vhat we have to account for is a gap, beat,

or

alternating suction,

to

fol

low some

of

Freud's indication

s,

and that

is

what 1 have proceeded lO

do

in

grounding the unconscious in a topology.

TIle structure

of

what doses

rs

forme] is,

i n e e ~

inscribed in a geometry

in which space

is

reduced to a combinatory:

it is

what

is

called an edge in

topoloh ) _

By formally studying the consequences of the irreducibility

of

the cut

it

makes, one could rework some

of

the most interesting functions between aes

thetics and logic.

One notices here that it is the closing of the unconscious which prm'ides the

key

to its

space-namely

the impropriety

of

trying to turn it illto an inside.

This closing also demonstrates the corc

of

a reversion time, quite neces

sarily introduced [if we arC to explain) the efficiency of discourse.

t

is rather

easily percei\'ed in something I have been emphasi7.ing for a long time: the

retroactive effect

of

meaning in sentences

,

meaning requiring the last word

of

a sentence

to

e

scaled

[ fe boueler].

fllachtraglichkcit (remember that 1 was the first to extract it from Freud's

8 9

texts)

or

deferred action [apres-coupl

by

Which

trauma becomes

invoked

in

symptoms, reveals a temporal structure

of

a higher order.

But

abo\ e all, experience with this closing shows that

it

would not be gra

tuitous On the part of psychoanalysts to reopen the debate over the cause a

phantom that cannot be banished from thought, whether critical

or

not. For

rlle

cause is not, as is said of being as well, a lure of forms of

dis.course-oth

erwisc it would have alrcady been dispelled. t perpetuates the reason that

subordinates the subject to the signifier'S effect.

It is

only

as

instance

of

the unconscious, the Freudian unconscious, thar

one grasps the cause at the level at which someone like

f

Yume

attempts

to


10/19

7 2

Ecrits

flush it out, which is precisely the level at which it takes

on

consistency: the

retroaction of

the

signifier

in

its efficiency, which must

be

rigorously distin-

guished from the final cause.

Were

we to

demonstrate thar it is rhe only true first cause, m apparent

discordance

of

Aristotle 's four

causes

would,

in

fact, dissipate;

from

their

t f-

rain, analysts could contribute to this reformulation.

They would have the benefit of being able

to

usc the Freudian term

overdetertnination as something other than an evasive answer.

What

fol-

lows introduces the feature that

commands

the functioning relationship

between these forms: their circular, albeit nonreciprocal, articulation.

While there is

dosing

and entry, they do not necessarily separate: they

provide tvm domains with a mode of conjunction.

They

are the subject and

the Other, respectively, and these domains are to be substantified here only

on

the basis

of

my theses concerning the unconscious.

The subject, the Cartesian subject, is what is presupposed by the uncon-

scious-I have shown that elsewhere.

The

Other

is the dimension required by the fact that speech affirms itself

as truth.

The unconscious is, between the two of them, their cut in action.

This

cut is seen to command (he tw fundamental operations with which the

840 subject's causation should be formulated. These operations are ordered in a

circular, yet nonreciprocal, relationship.

The first, alienation, constitutes the subject as such. In a fidd of objects,

no relationship is conceivable that engenders alienation apart from the rela-

tionship with the signifier. Let us take as our point of departure the fact that

no subject has any reason to appear in the real unless there arc speaking

beings in it. A physics is conceivable that accounts for everything in the

world, including its animate part; a subject intervenes

only

inasmuch as there

al'e, in this world, signifiers that mean nothing and must

be

deciphered.

To

grant priority to the signifier

over

the subject is, in my book,

to

take

into account the experience Freud opened up for us: the signifier plays and

wins, if I may say so, before the subject is aware of it, to such an extent that in

the play

of it{

(in witticisms, for example) it may surprise the subject.

What it lights up ,;th its flash is the subject's division from himself.

But the fact that the signifier reveals

to the subject his own division should

not make us forget that this division stems from nothing other than that very

same play, (he play of signifiers-signifiers, not signs.

Signs are polyvalent: they no doubt represent something

to

someone,

but


11/19

Position of the Unconscious

7

J

the status

of

that someone

is

uncertain,

as

is that

of

the supposed language

of

ccrtain animals. a sign language which neither allows for metaphor nor

engenders metonymy.

This someone could, by some stretch

of

the imagination, be the universc,

insofar

as

information, so we arc told, circulates

in

it. Any center in which

information

is

tOtal(iz)ed can be taken for a someone, but not for a subject.

The register of the signifier

is

instituted on the basis

of

the fact that a sig

nifier represents a subject to another signifier. This is the structLIre of all

unconscious formations: dreams, slips

of

the tongue, and witticisms_

The

same structure explains the subject's original division_ Produced in the locus

of

the yet-to-be-situated Other, the signifier brings forth a subject from a

being that canllot yet speak, but at the cost of freezing

him_

The ready-to

speak that

was

t

be

therein both senses

of

the French imperfect if

y

avail,

placing the ready-to-speak an instam before (it was there but is no longer),

but also an instant after (a few moments

mOre

and it would have been thel-e

because it could have been there) ---


12/19

4

Ecrits

You should

be awal e that what remains

is,

in any

case, diminished:

it will

be life without

money and, having refused death, a life somewhat inconve

nienced by the cost

of

freedom.

TIlis is the stigma of the

fact that the

l ef here,

functioning

dialectically,

dearly operates on the y l

of IOglcal

union,

which is

known to be

equivalent

t

an and

(sic el non).

This

is

illustrated

by the

fact that, in the long

run,

you

will have

to

give up your life after your money, and in the

end

the only thing

left will be

your

freedom to die.

Similarly,

OUf

subject

is

subjected

t the Yel

of a certain meaning he

must

receive or petrification. But should he retain the meaning, the nonmcaning

842

procluccd by his change

into

a signifier will

encroach on this field (of mean

ing).

This

nonmeaning clearly falls within the Other's field, although it is

pf(xluced as

an

eclipse

of

the subject.

This

[ a

chose

is worth

saying, for it qualifies the field of the unconscious

to take a scat, I

would

say, in the place

of

the analyst-let us take

that

liter

ally- in

his armchair. Vie have arrived

at

such a pass

that

we should leave

him this armchair in a symbolic gesture.

The

latter is an expression com

monly

used

[

say

a gesture

of

protest,

and its import

would be t

chal

lenge the

order-so

prettily avowed

by

its

crude motto

in Francglaire

(to

coin a term), directly issuing from theb,..w8tu a princess

perpetrated

upon

Frendl

psychoanalysis

by

replacing

the pre-Socratic tone

of

Freud's

precept,

v;ro

Es war,

solilch

werden, with

the

croaking

strains of-

- the

ego (the

analyst'S, no doubt) must dislodge

the id

(the patient's, of

course).

The

fact

that

people have objected

t

Serge Leclaire's claim

that

the

t -

com

sequence

is unconscious,

by

pointing out

that Leclaire

himself

is con

scious of it, means

that they

do not

see that the

unconscious

only

has

meaning

in the Other's field; still less do

they

see the consequence thereof:

that

it is not

the effect of

meaning that

is operative in interpretation,

but rather

the articu

lation in the symptom

of

signifiers

(without

any meaning at all) dlat have

gotten

caught up

in

it.)

Let us turn now

to

dle second operation, in which the subject'S causation

closes,

t

test the stmcture

of

the

edge in

its function

as a limit,

but

also in the

twist that motivates the encroachment

of

the unconscious. I call this

opera

tion separation. We

will see

that

it is

what

Freud

called Ichspaltung

or

the

splitting

of

the subject, and

grasp

why

Freud, in

the text in which he

introduces

it

[ The

Splitting

of

the g o ] ~

grounds

it in a splitting, not of the

subject, but

of

the object (namely,

dle

phallic object).

The

logical form dialectically modified by the second operation is called

intersection

in symbolic logic; it

is

also the

product

formulated

by

a


13/19

Position of the Um:onscious

7 5

belonging

to

_ and to

_

This function is modified here by a part taken

hum a lack situated within another lack, through which the subject in


14/19

Ecrits

~ l h a t

he will place there

is

his own lack, in the form of the lack he would

(like to) produce in the

Other

through his own disappearance

the

disap

pearance (which he has at hand, so to speak)

of

the part

of

himself he receivcs

from his initial alienation.

But what he thus fills

is

not the lack

faille]

he encounters in the Other, but

rather, first of all. the lack that results from the constitutive loss of one of his

parts, by which he turns out to be made of two parts. Therein lies the twist

whereby separation represents the return of alienalion. for the subject oper

ates

with

his own loss, which brings him back

to

his point of departure.

lis 'can he lose me? is, no doubt, the recOurse he has against the opacity

of the desire he encounters

in

the Other's locus, but it merely brings the sub

ject back to the opacity of the being he receives through his advenr as a sub

ject. such as he was first produced by the other's summoning.

1t

is an operation whose fundamental outlines arc found in psychoanalytic

technique. For it

is insofar

as

the ana1yst intervenes by scanding the patient's

discourse that an adjustment occurs in the pulsation of the rim through which

the being that resides just shy of

it

must flow.

The

true and final mainspring

of

what constinHes transference

is

the

expectation of this being's advent in relation to what J call the analyst's

desire, insofar as something b o u t the analyst'S own position has remained

unnoticed therein, at least

IIp

until now.

This

is

why

transference is a relationship thar

is

essentially tied

1

time and

ilS handling. But what

is

the being that respon


15/19

Position of the Unconscious

hakes are fused together as firmly as those of a Magdeburg sphere; rhe

halves, separated later by a surgical operation arising from Zeus' jealousy,

represent the beings we have become in love, starving for

our

unfindable

complement.

Tn considering the sphericity of primordial Man as much as his di,ision, it

is the egg that comes to mind and thai has thus perhaps been repressed since

Plato.

given the preeminence granted for centuries

to

the sphere in a hierar

d l of

forms sanctioned by the natural sciences.

Consider Ihe eg g;: in a viviparous womb where

it

has no need for a shell.

and recall that, whenever the membranes burst, a pan

of

the egg

is

harmed,

for the membranes

of

the fertilized

egg

are offspring Uilles] just

as

much

as

the Ihing being brought into the world by their perforation. Conscquendy,

upon cutting the cord, what the ne\vborn loses is not, as analysts think, its

mother, but rather its anatomical complement. ~ i d w i v e s

ca1l

it the after

bicth

[dili ].

Now imagine (hat every rime the membranes burst, a

p h n t o m ~ n

infi

nitely more primal form of life, in no wise willing 1O settle for a duplicate role

in

some microcosmic worlel within a

w o r l d ~ t k c s

flight through the same

passage.

Man

[I Homme]

is made by breaking an egg, but so is the Manlet

fIIfommclcue].

Let us assume the larrer to be a large crepe that moves like an amoeba, so

utterly flat that

it

can slip under doors, omniscienr as

it

is guided by the pure

life instinct, and immortal

as

it is fissiparous.

t

is cerrainly something that

would not be good to

feel

dripping down your face, noiselessly while you

sleep, in order to seal iL

f

we arc willing to allow the digestive process

[ 0

begin

at

this poim,

we

846

realize that the Manlet has ample sustenance for a long rime to come (remem-

ber that there are organisms,

which are quite differentiated, that have no

digestive tract).

t

goes without saying that a struggle would soon ensue with such a fear

some being, and that the struggle would be fierce. For it

can

be

assumed that,

since the Manlet has no sensory system,

it

has for guidance bur rhe pure real;

it thus has an advantage over us men who must always provide ourselves

with a homunculus in our heads in order to turn Ihat real into a reality.

Indeed, it would not be easy to obviate the paths

of

its anacks, which

would, moreover, be impossihle to predict, as it would also know no obsta

c1es.1t would

e

impossible

to

educare and just

as

impossible ro trap.

As for destroying the 11anlct, one had best avoid letting

it

proliferate, for


16/19

Ferils

to

Cllt

it up would help it

repr


17/19


18/19

f.oits

849 It is impo:lI1ant to g r a ~ p how thcOIgallisrn is taken lip in thc dialectk of tilt

subjcd. TIle organ of what is incorporeal in Ihe


19/19

Position

of the

Unconscious

highly

condensed

myth

found in

the same te.xt regarding the creation of

Adam's

companion.

No doubt Lilith was there from before,

but

t113tdoes nor explain anything.

Breaking offherc, ] leave to the past the

debates [at

the Bonneval colloquiumJ

in

which,

concerning the Freudian unco nscious, irresponsible interventions

were

quite welcome, precisely

because

those responsible tor them

only

came

Lhere halfheartedly, not [ say from a certain side [bord].

One

of the

results

was.

nevertheless,

that (he order issued

by

this side to

p ss over my teaching in silence

was

not

respected.

The

fact that, regarding the Oooipus complex. the

last act

-or

rather

thc

role of warm-up band

w e

nt

to

a hermeneutic feat, confirms

my assessment

oftlus

colloquium

and

has since

revealed

its

consequences.

At my own risk, J

indicate

here the means [Iappareill

by

whIch accuracy

could return."

otes

I.

Abbn.-'yiated

Y(''J'Sion

of

my

anSVlcr

to an

ineffeClivc

objection

2. J he

lacan - position of the unconscious

Documents