The really funny thing is our tendency to use and abuse ternary forms.
Octavio Paz. Foreword to "The language of trilogies," by E. Ferrer.
Oh, mathematicians, clarify the error! The spirit has no voice, because where there is no body voice.
Leonardo. cited by G. Agamben
November 1, 1974. In Mexico, the eve of Day of the Dead and not long ago I came into the world, in Rome, a city full of history to humanity and the nascent Lacan, the Freudian School of Paris held its seventh congress. The third ( La Troisième )-title alluding to the time he would speak in this city and the three dimensions of the Borromean knot, is the intervention of Jacques Lacan . The written
(sixty-six pages, says towards the end [2:33:15]) prepared for the occasion, to my knowledge, only circulating what Lacan read transcripts and spoke out loud to the audience that day (mostly French) that filled the concert hall of the National Academy of Santa Cecilia. Beyond
apparent digressions ("Well I'm misleading, however, this loss does not lose track of which shows"), the most intricate passages, the zigzag path (in saying this I have a feeling that language can only truly advance twisting and coiling, outlining a way which after all can not be said that is not leading by example "), the Lacan's discourse is directed to the work of the psychoanalyst and presentation commissioning plane ( mise à plat) of the Borromean knot, Lacan operation which would make the knot in a writing instrument: "The Borromean knot is a script, and this writing supports a real "say a few weeks later, back to his workshop (RSI).
The conference belongs then to the final moment of the Lacanian school, at which time the working and doctrinal developments of Lacan have basically focused on the Borromean structure and its articulation (possible or impossible?, "Successful or not?, there are split positions) with practice he called psychoanalysis.
is said that in addition to writing, with the knot Lacan gave the analysts a new way of thinking about concepts, to the point where it would be valid to wonder if after the knot it to keep talking about concepts. While the flattening of the knot (excerpt from the third to the second dimension) was discussed at the seminar Les non-dupes errent (especially de1974 January 8), and even before, in the penultimate lesson Encore (October 23, 1973), in The third ranked first Lacan time by writing the "place" some time ago it developed concepts: the phallic jouissance (J φ) , the enjoyment of the Other (JA), the tiny object, object which he said in the conference- "No idea."
Writing nodal topological Lacan developed after 1972 was intended to provide a doctrinal support the subject deploys its say in an analytic treatment. A deed in which the three categories of the triad is the first time, really strictly equivalent. RSI (three dimensions, three residences say if we play homophone of Lacan: dimension, dit-mansion ). In 1974 (it will change the thing), Lacan felt that three was the minimum required to form consistency Borromean chain, and that the fundamental property of this was that the consistencies are tied so that the cut a separate three: invariance property is satisfied only the third since, in the fourth dimension to space calculable but not imaginable, to say the Lacan-two or more consistencies can be separated without being cut.
The image above shows the most complete writing of the Borromean flattened Lacan presented on the occasion of the third . Consistencies are opened, creating areas of writing (at the seminar called RSI fields ex-resistance) at the intersections of the records of the triad, in addition to the Lacanian there are significant Freudian preconscious representation in the open field the Imaginary to the Real, the unconscious opening of the Symbolic to the Imaginary, while the Real to the Symbolic opens where you type the symptom ("I call symptom that comes from the Real" [45 : 33]). Life (in Real) and death (in the Symbolic), if you think as text Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Freud is significant that closely relate to the enjoyment.
In the center, the core of the structure that Lacan called trisquel is the object that in plus both enjoy, ([2:07:04] "is on this site for plus- "jouir where it connects all to enjoy, and therefore what is external to each of these intersections") connects to the joys while separating them: the phallic jouissance (J φ) outside the body at the intersection between the Real and the Symbolic, the enjoyment of the Other (JA), enjoyment impossible mediated by the word and the language might be, at the intersection between the Imaginary and the Real, an enjoyment which, according to Lacan, it could only bridge the science. Finally, between imaginary and symbolic meaning is another way the enjoyment ( jouis-sens) to be held in the equivocal or witz.
In Third, Lacan insists once again that the analytical interpretation does not operate from the sense (not a hermeneutics), instead playing with the ambiguity ([2:09:22] involved the abolition of meaning "), falls directly on the signifier:
[2:11:02] "To the extent that interpretation, the analytic intervention rests solely on the signifier, some of the symptoms can go back field. Here in the symbolic, as it holds symbolic llanguage (...)" And is it the sound field, the significant voice of lalangue Lacan, among other things, we can hear in the recording of this conference, rather than as purchase llanguage effectiveness in its passage to the letter ("because there is no point without llanguage, and that even the problem, how can llanguage rush in point.")
Even if you never reached, as in the transcript published in the Proceedings of the Freudian School of Paris, where, as a curiosity, clears the lapse of Lacan [7:59] which was dead at Levi- Strauss, thirty-five years before it expired, returning (in Lacan's unrevised version, rinsed) in place the name of a friend of theirs: Merleau-Ponty (d. 1961). A third person, fictitious, cited in the letter. Or like when you lose, in the same transcript, the neologism: subjenctif [17:33] (homophonic condensation between s and ubjonctif subjectif, subjunctive and subjective).
In Third, Lacan's voice seems to sound the song of their lalangue ("Fiction and song of the speech and language in psychoanalysis, and with his famous ironic title, the seminar anguish, where he also studied voice). Before you rush to the letter written at the intersection between Imaginary and Real, but in other writings, most here that the Real and the Symbolic knotted body to the imaginary. And if in 1954 gave his famous Discours de Rome , The third would rather-as Lacan himself said from the beginning [2:15] - your disqu'ourdrome (neologism that condenses "speech" [ discours] , "says" or "states that" [ ce que dit ], "drom" [Greek root édramon , running], "Rome" [ Rome], and "disk" [ disque ], topological object with which the object appeared Lacan a).
[4:06] "This ourdrome just gives me the opportunity to place the voice under the rubric of the four objects that I have called, that is, return to empty the substance may be in the noise it makes, ie, replace the account of the signifying operation, which I have specified as the effects called metonymy, so that from there, his voice if I can say- the voice is free, free to be anything other than substance "
The audio of the entire conference can be downloaded in mp3 format from Megaupload here.
Here transcript appeared in the Proceedings VET. (Source Pas tout Lacan)
And here online you can read a transcript available alternative site Patrick Valas.
0 comments:
Post a Comment