Real castllano


Pre-text 03
Pre-text 3 Rithée Cevasco PDF
Pre-text 02
Trauma: event and advent of the real Sandra Berta PDF
Pre-text 01
Advent of the real Colette Soler PDF
of the Xth Meeting
Twenty years... R. Escapa and R. Miralpeix  

Pre-text 03
Pre-text 3 >>> PDF
Rithée Cevasco, Pre-text for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018
June 2017

The expression “advent” of the real raises some questions. What distinction can we make between “advent” in the singular or in the plural. Event(s) and why not “manifestations of the real”? How not to evoke Lacan’s counterpoint, frequently made, between “the symptom as event of the body” and anxiety as “advent of the real”?

I refer to what Colette Soler has pointed out, since it is to her that we owe the introduction of the subject for our Rendezvous. She has made clear on several occasions that advent has the sense of something expected and rather desirable. The term can thus take on a positive value.

I am putting forward the following question: what advent of the real can we expect from a psychoanalysis? Lacan spoke of his expectation of a possible advent at the end of the analysis: that of a new signifier, an invention – removing all pretension from this term – a signifier that comes from each one, and is thus, singular.

We find the expression “advents of the real” in Television and in “La Troisième”. However Lacan uses it in other contexts as well. To cite but one: “the advent of the real subject” that he mentions in the course of his Seminar VI, Le désir et son interpretation…” a subject with which we are confronted in experience as “having already happened” [déjà advenu] in the past, having the same origin as its production.

As for “of the real” [du réel], I hear the “du” as a partitive in French. The use of the neuter article “lo” in Spanish is welcome here, it seems to me, for it avoids speaking “of THE real”.

And that is for several reasons.

In the first place, it seems to me that we are referring to a “field of the real”, thus larger than the real circumscribed by analytic practice: the real of science, of art, of politics and even sometimes the real of the jouissance of the living being.

Thus the term “real” is bearer of a differential sense. It depends on the practices that circumscribe (a term that could be refined with Borromean writing) it. Whether it is a matter of elucidated practices or not, they are always grasped within a particular discourse. We approach the real as that which excludes all sense. Without any doubt! But could we speak of a real that could not be circumscribed by a practice/discourse? The real, in this or that field, through this or that practice, is circumscribed by the impossible (Freud perceived this when he spoke of the impossible practices of governing, educating and analysing). The real could thus be approached more precisely as that which constitutes the proper limit to all practices and all discourses. Bumping against these limits could induce a movement towards other discursive turning points, the real being revealed in the interstices of the “round” of one discourse to the other.

This is valid for science itself for it does not abandon its impossibles. The ideology of science alone – not the order of its reasons – in its alliance with the capitalist discourse is at the origin of the promotion of the idea that “everything is possible” in the market of the illusions of consumption.

In addition, Borromean writing allows us to circumscribe the real at stake in the field of psychoanalysis. We can define it on the basis of the One (that of number, obviously not that of the unification of two into one).

There is a double writing of the real in Lacan. The One of the real as a simple ring of string (the minimum expression of which is called a “trivial knot” in the language of knots) equivalent to that of the symbolic and of the imaginary, each trivial knot having its consistency, its hole and its ex-sistence. The ring of string is then the “most eminent representation of the One, in the sense that it encloses but a hole”,[1] Lacan says in Encore, at the very start of his adventure with Borromean knots.

He also affirms with insistence that “his knot” is real. This is no longer a matter of the trivial knot, but of the Borromean knot, formed with a minimum of three rings of string, and beyond that, the knot of the sinthome (with an “h”) in so far as that accomplishes a function of knotting.

So it concerns the structure of the real of the parlêtre (a real that Lacan tries to write outside any “erring” of the metaphor, and which, in so far as it is real, cannot be considered as a model that would be applied to …).

Thus the real is one of the three dit-mensions[2] of the parlêtre, which, with the symbolic and the imaginary, are the generic elements of every speaking being. But the real of the knot is supported by the modality of knotting, by the sinthome (with an “h”): singular real, proper to each one, so one by one.

Without any doubt the clinic constructs typologies, for that is its function. But this is a clinic that must be forgotten with every new case, the orientation by the real aiming at the singular proper to each analysand.

So the real is conjugated with the One and with the “at least three…”, thereby removing the two which contradicts the axiom of exclusion (there is no sexual relation that can be written). Only the analytic discourse allows it to be unveiled, there where all the other discourses veil it.

What “advent of the real” could we expect from psychoanalysis that is not bound to this impossible real of the sexual relation? That is to say, under the form of the letter of the symptom or as a manifestation of affects and, primarily, the as privileged affect that anxiety constitutes.

We know that the impossible real specific to analysis is situated in the negativities of the structure of language: not meta-language, not the universe of discourse, not the Other of the Other on the plane of language. We could add: not truth which is but half-said, and also taking into consideration the “not-all” of the object a, which is necessarily partial. There are statements of “there is not” anterior to the formulation, in 1967, of the axiom that concerns the negativity of the real of sex: “No sexual relation that can be written” (“the great secret of psychoanalysis”, Lacan tells us). Jouissance and language are thus knotted in its formulas of negativity. Negativities that on the other hand find their positive responses in sinthomatic (with an “h”) variations which, in responding to them, function in a supplementary way [suppléance].

Based on the practice of psychoanalysis, “advents of the real” pose a question: are the variations of the sinthomatic (with an “h”) solution differentiated according to the modalities of sexual jouissance: phallic and not-all phallic – this jouissance other than phallic … if it existed? The other jouissance is not to be confused with the jouissance of the Other… which does not exist and which is only manifested in the imaginary of fantasmatic significations, incarnated in the primordial figures of the Father and The Woman.

Can the choice of sex (liberated from the fantasmatic signification of jouissance) be awaited as an advent of the real of sexuated jouissance? If we speak of choice, there is an expectation of something new that would happen [adviendrait], different from the symptom of jouissance that has already happened [advenu] and is fixed from childhood in its double-sided “traumatic” dimension: the entry of sexual trauma and the trauma of language in coalescence.

The Freudian imperative, often commented upon, “Wo … war … werden”[3] – I have put ellipses, on purpose, at the “locus” of what was already and what must come to be [advenir] – to echo something of the order of “advents of the real” aimed at by the politics of a psychoanalysis oriented to the real.

These advents emerge as the effect of a saying (neither deduced nor induced, but inferred based on the statements of the analysand in the course of the treatment[4]). This “saying” that remains forgotten behind what is said.

With regard to the sinthome (with an “h”) as function of Borromean knotting, could we expect a possible choice in the treatment? Colette Soler makes this suggestion: if there is a choice, if we are not condemned to a destiny already traced by the forced choices of the formations of childhood symptoms of jouissance, this choice would be situated without doubt at the level of the sinthome (with an “h”). So that is what could be expected in an analysis.

This is what we question as a consequence, and in a manner that concerns us particularly with regard to the “advent” of the sinthome (with an “h”) of the analyst and his relation to the real. We can question ourselves on the whys of this choice, a classic subject studied under the forms of the “advent of the desire of the analyst”.

It is a saying of this order that can be inferred in the dispositif of the Pass and, consequently it would accompany a nomination of AS [Analyst of the School].

In considering the “advents of the real” in an analysis, could we not question ourselves also about the modalities, or modulations of the “not-all” in the traversing of the impossibilities of signification, of sense, of the sexual relation (according to L’étourdit) and, very particularly, of what a saying of “not-all” infers with regard to this jouissance that is other than phallic jouissance.

The formulas of sexuation invite us to make this step starting with this “something” that can circulate between these four positions: of the necessary and of the possible which are in contradiction (foreclosed negation: yes or no) and of the contingent and the impossible which confront us with an undecidable (yes or no; yes and no; yes, but not all … it is that, but not all … nearer to what would be conflicting negation in French grammar).

I want to be precise in what I am saying: in this context it is not a matter of once again picking up the old debate about the specificity of feminine writing, for writings by women, together with their testimonies of the Pass, are not necessarily those from which can be expected a saying that is “not-all”. Nor is it about the “feminisation” of the analytic world or of the whole world, and still less – it goes without saying – of a supposed “feminisation” of the male analyst.

It is about the circulation between the left side and the right side of the formulas of sexuation that shatter any anchorage in the “touthomanie” of the universal norm (a male norm, Lacan tells us) and of inferring the Saying of the “true hole” of the structure of the parlêtre.

Every Saying is existential and contingent, but the Saying of The One, the saying of the One-sinthome (with an “h”) can come in various forms according to other modalities of sayings. It is not about affirming that there would be a ONE-SAYING-OTHER, of this other jouissance that responds to a logic of the not-all, for we would certainly return to the closing of the discourse about sexuality that would lead once more to the “two” that is the complement of the relation that does not exist.

So the question could be formulated thus: what is the connection between the ONE-Saying of the sinthome (with an “h”) and the not-all?

I have simply wished to raise some possible stopping points among the multiple questions that we summon with the subject “advents of the real” for our next Rendezvous in Barcelona.

We do not expect the advent of the messiah from an analysis! On the other hand, can we not expect from it the advent of an ethic (it would also be emptied of all pretention) of a saying of the not-all to which it invites us? Advent that could have effects beyond our practice if we succeed (vain hope?) in producing an echo of our discourse in other “advents” of the real that are announced rather from the side of a totalitarianism of the all. More particularly, in the political field … and that without dwelling on the capitalist discourse, promoter of certainly non-traditional forms of “touthomanie”, but not ceasing to extol a universe of the not- impossible, associated with the all-powerful ideology of science which does not take responsibility for the consequences of its treatment – indubitably efficacious – of the real.

Translated by Susan Schwartz
1. Translator’s addition: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XX, On Feminine Sexuality, The Limits of Love and Knowledge, Encore 1972-1973, ed. J-A Miller, trans. B. Fink, New York and London, W.W. Norton & Company, p. 127.
2. Translator’s note:“Dit-mension” introduces “dit” (“say”) – into the word “dimension”.
3. The well-known Freudian expression is “Wo es war, soll ich werden”.
4. In L’étourdit, Lacan situates the saying [dire] as the effect of a cut. With Borromean writing, he puts the accent on a saying that knots and names. However, later (Seminar 24, L’Insu) he again takes up the function of the cut on one or more toruses made from rounds of string through the operation of their possible reversal.
5. In her book Lacan, lecteur de Joyce (Paris, PUF, 2015).
6. It seems to me that our colleague Florencia Farias defended a doctoral thesis in which she approached this problem. Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to read it. Certainly other colleagues in our community will have had access to it and this will be an important reference on this question.
7. See Chapter XIV of Seminar …ou pire, the class at St Anne on “The knowledge of the psychoanalyst” of June 1, 1972. Lacan mentions something of the order of a circulation (which evokes without doubt the “circle” of discourse) induced by the unstable logic that grounds the logical partition of sexual jouissance between jouissance that is all phallic or not-all phallic.
8. Translator’s note: “touthomanie” is an “invention” of the author’s: “tout” meaning “all” in the sense of “all phallic”; “h” for “Homme” meaning “Man” as in the left side of the formulas of sexuation; “manie” meaning “mania”. Thus: the all phallic mania of masculine jouissance.

Pre-text 02
Trauma: event and advent of the real
Sandra Leticia Berta, Pre-text for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018
May 2017

From the moment we decided to work on the theme of the advent of the real for the next International Rendezvous, I wondered about the clinical inplications of the expression. As I have researched on trauma for years, a question immediately emerged for me: if we consider the tuchic factor of the trauma, is there any difference between the traumatic event and the advent of the real? I present my reflections here.

In the history of psychoanalysis, the traumatic event enabled not only the discovery of the unconscious but also the differentiation between the traumatic event and the structure of the trauma, understood as a hole (trou), written S (A/) [signifier of the lack in the Other], as Lacan proposed towards de end of his teaching. The passage fro the traumatic event to the troumatism orientates the direction of the treatment in every analysis. The elaboration of a knowledge about the tuchic moment makes of the trauma the index of an undecidable real.

Within the itinerary that goes from the trauma to the troumatism we distinguish between several conceptions of temporality: that of the deferred action (nachträglich), that of the act, which assigns a privileged position to the topological cut, and finally the moment of the Borromean knotting. All of them partake of the logical temporality proposed by Lacan: the moment of seeing, the time for understanding and the moment to conclude.

Speaking of ‘the advent of the trauma’ instead of ‘traumatic event’ may serve the purpose of highlighting the traumatic moment and of marking its differences with its elaboration. I will refer to this aspect of the question later. In our community we have spoken of the event of the S1, the signifier 1, of the passing of the tuché as an event of jouissance and of the ones of repetition. It seems to me that taken in this sense event and advent are synonymous – which we can read in the dictionary. But the advent emphasizes the arrival and not only the different traits of the event.

On the other hand, if we refer to the advent, we need to discriminate between two acceptations that appear in Lacan’s teaching: the advent of the subject and the advent of the real. These are not the only acceptations; but they are the most relevant ones.

The notion of ‘the advent of the subject’ has its origins in the developments on the symbolic and was formalized as the operations of causation of the subject: alienation and separation.[1]

I briefly point out that in the alienation through the vel of exclusive disjunction the subject chooses between either petrification or sense. According to the logical anteriority of the subject’s causation, the second operation concerns separation, whose effect is object a,[2] the subject thus entering into the metonymy of the signifying chain (S1–S2).

It may be added that at at ulterior moment the vel of exclusive disjunction is used to indicate the division between the subject and jouissance. Here the accent is on the enjoyed signifier – the enjoying substance which is what finally what comes [adviene] from the real, if we take the S1 into consideration.

In fact, we can read the contingency of the advent of the real by means of a signifier S1 both in the operations of causation of the subject and in the writing of the Borromean knot.

The advent of the real as irruption of S1 appears in the references to the subject and in the developments on the parlêtre. Both share the same logic, but it seems to me that as far as temporality is concerned the causation of the subject emphasizes the traumatic a posteriori, as it refers to a real that remains as an extimate limit, whereas in the case of the knot, given its cardinal nature, the advent of the trauma is knotted. The 1 of the traumatic is 3: real, symbolic and imaginary. In this sense, ‘the advent of the real’ may well suit the Borromean trauma, as it indicates that the trauma comes to be [adviene] as knotted.

In the years 1974 and 1975 we find a differentiation beetween the advent of the real and the event of saying [decir] which requires the temporality of the knot. In Seminar XXI, Les non-dupes errent, Lacan refers to the event of saying as a writing of the knot, and discriminates between the symbolic, the real and the imaginary events.[3] A certain passage came to my attention: ‘The event as such only occurs in the symbolic order. There is no other event than in the saying [decir]’.[4] Time is needed to write the knot of the saying, the knot of the parlêtre done around the Borromean trauma.

We can now move forward, towards the expression ‘advent of the real’ in La Tercera [The Third].[5] In this conference, which is contemporaneous with Seminar XXI, Lacan says that the analyst depends on the advent of the real, as Colette Soler has already underlined in her book Avènements du réel, de l’angoise au symptôme[6] and in the firt Pre-text of the Barcelona Rendezvous, 2018. Following that, Lacan refers to interpretation as equivoque and to lalangue which, as detritus of the unconscious, becomes the sediment of an experience that leaves knowledge as a remnant. The intepretation operates with lalangue, which does not prevent that the unconscious be structured like a language. This means that the interpretation operates with the Ones of jouissance, so that the parlêtre becomes Borromean.

If the trauma is the knotted advent of S1, an irruption of the real, that is the clinical proof that the trauma is the knotting of a real. Although from the perspective of the trauma advent and event are synonymous, we also find a differential trait. The emphasis on the advent of the real involved in the traumatic signifier is not without consequences, as it transforms the a posteriori into an act and into knotted logical time. Furthermore, the considerations on the moterialité that is proper to the Borromean knot have implications for the nagträglich sense. In the clinic it is necessary to force (mathematical forcing[7]) the word in its moterialité so as to read in what is heard to then produce a writing. Therefore, searching for the sense of an event is not the same thing as aiming at the enjoyed-sense of knowledge. This does not mean discarding the fantasy, as that would not be possible in the clinic; but it means being at the service ‘of what functions as real in knowledge’[8] . The statements [dichos] of the traumatic event allude to the event of a saying [decir] and evoke the knotted real that ex-sists to sense (absense).

Lastly, the advent of the real of the trauma calls for a reflection on the Borromean clinic, bearing in mind the real unconscious and the hole in knowledge. Once again, to speak of trauma in psychoanalysis is to speak of psychoanalysis. It is not a mere coincidence that Freud’s questioning of the trauma led to the discovery of the unconscious.
São Paulo, 26th May, 2017
Translated by Leonardo Rodríguez

1. Lacan, J. (1977). The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis [Seminar XI]. London, Tavistock.
2. Lacan, J. The Seminar, Book XIV, The logic of fantasy, 1966-1967. Session of 16 November 1966. Unpublished transcript.
3. Lacan, J. The Seminar, Book XXI, Les non-dupes errent. Session of 18 December 1973. Unpublished ranscript.
4. Lacan, J. The Seminar, Book XXI, Les non-dupes errent. Session of 15 January 1974: '[...] l´événement lui, l´événement ne se produit que dans l´ordre du Symbolique'.
5. Lacan, J. La tercera (1 November 1974). In Intervenciones y textos 2. Buenos Aires, Manantial, 1993, pp. 73-113.
6. Soler, C. (2016). Avènements du réel, de l´angoisse au symptôme. Cours 2015-2016. Paris: Éditions du Champ lacanien. Collection Études, p. 170.
7. Lacan, J. (1976-1977). The Seminar, Book XXIV, L’insu que sait de l’une-bévue s’aile à mourre. Session of 19 April 1977. Unpublished transcript.
8 Soler, C. (2009). Lacan – The Unconscious Reinvented. London, Karnac, Paris, p. 19.

Pre-text 01
Advent of the real
Colette Soler, Pre-text for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018
April 2017

I will take advantage of this first pre-text, which the two organisers of the RV 2018 have asked me to write, to reflect on the problematic of the theme that we have chosen.

The word “advent” designates a moment of emergence, a moment of the appearance of something unprecedented, which might be foreseen, for example Louis XIV’s advent to the throne or the advent of a new political regime, or it could also simply be awaited as in the messianic usage, the advent of the saviour or of the end of the world, but it could also happen [advenir] by surprise. For example, isn’t that the case with the advent of Freudianism at the end of the nineteenth century? The nuance there is interesting: we would not speak of the advent of Freud, but of Freudianism, and he was hardly foreseen and even less expected.

So the advent of the real? The common idea, even one received by Lacanian transmission, is not that the real can happen [advenir]. Rather, isn’t it thought of as impossible to avoid for speaking beings who are moulded by the imaginary and the symbolic. The definition, “impossible to avoid”, as broad as it is, already divides the real into two parts. On one side, there is the real that owes nothing to the symbolic, a Tsunami, for example, and the sex ratio about which Lacan was so emphatic, are of that order, generally speaking, that of the real of nature or of life. But “impossible to avoid” is not reducible to that for on the other side there is also destiny – this is the word used in our civilisation for the impossible to avoid – that language makes us.

Since always we have defined it in terms of mis-fortune [mal-heur], impotence and impossibility, and we have imputed it to the gods and to sin. Lacan himself recognised in it the effect of the structure of language on the living being, what I have called the negativities of the structure. But this is to forget that the gaps introduced into the speaking being by language are great due to something completely different from this curse: all the possibilities of invention and creation that we have for a long time subsumed under the term “sublimation” and which humanity takes glory in. From the time of “On a question prior to any possible treatment of psychosis”, Lacan was saying nothing other than “the function of derealisation is not entirely located in the symbol”.[1]

Now when he employs the expression “advent of the real” – he does not say “of real” or “of reals” – in both Television and “La troisième”, he speaks about the effects of science. The moon landing on the one hand, and on the other, the production of novelties of surplus jouissance conditioned by science under capitalism. We are certainly in the problematic of human fecundity, of its capacity to make the new happen [advenir], to change being and its entourage jointly and at the same time. Certainly, today we are no longer so sure that this capacity is synonymous with progress, as was the case with the enthusiasm of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, and also with the expectation of the “new man” of the 19th century. Today, history has shown the dark face and the lawlessness of this fecundity. Lacan, always up to date, indubitably touches its effects … biopolitical for the collective, beyond the specifically individual effects that psychoanalysis treats. This was already being questioned at the end of Seminar XI: what will happen when the whole book of science is eaten? Without doubt, the final chapter is not yet written, but we can do no less than to take up the question in Barcelona in 2018.

This will only be one aspect of our theme, for we will have to also ask ourselves how this real that makes our unconscious – destiny, as it was called for so long – happens [advient] for each of us. Will we speak of an advent of destiny, of a curse in its darkest form? That is the question. The two terms appear to be in contradiction, since advent is event, while destiny is spoken of in terms of “it was written”. And in fact, it is experienced as something to be endured. For the main part, repetition and symptom, two Freudian notions, are those where Lacan reads the two major effects of the language-unconscious, namely the inexorable missed encounter, and the unmoveable fixation of jouissance and of these conditions.

Advent of repetition, then? Yes, since repetition is less automaton than tuchè. It needs the accidental encounter that comes at the whim of life’s events, in order for the law of the missed encounter to appear [advenir] as necessary, as what does not cease. Appear [Advienne] through what motivates it: the insistence of the signifiers of the unconscious. I recalled the 1955 text, saying that the function of derealisation of the symbol is not all, but I left in suspension the rest of the sentence, which said, speaking of the symbol: “For in order for irruption in the real to be incontrovertible, the symbol need but present itself, as it commonly does, in the form of a broken chain”.[2] And Lacan wanted it to prove nothing less than the words of love at the approach of the partner thing. In Television, almost twenty years later, he will say “good fortune” [bon heur],[3] “the subject is happy [heureux], that’s its definition”, ironic. It is always the happiness [heur] of repetition. In the interim Lacan produced the unconscious as knowledge [savoir], made of enjoyed-signifiers [signifiants-jouis] the insistence of which, in the approach to the Other, is indeed an advent of the real, that of “there is no sexual relation”.

As for the advent of the real in the symptom, we can see it in its nascent state in phobia, this first signifier that is excepted from the signifiers of demand coming from the Other. Hans’s signifier, the horse, is not an object – Lacan hammered it enough – but it is not an offer from the Other either, it is properly speaking an advent, an invention, the here-it-is-again invention, of a signifier that “incarnates” the jouissance of the “traumatic penis”.[4] It guarantees a first coalescence of jouissance and the signifier. And for Lacan to say that Freud invented the unconscious – the unconscious that he deciphers in signifiers – based on the discovery that certain beings have in their encounter with their own erection,[5] starting with the first traumatic enjoyment that the phobia raises to the signifier by using some imaginary elements of perception. It is very exactly the advent of the ciphering of jouissance, for the infantile phobias disappear but the ciphering, that is, the substitution, continues from dream to lapsus, in the said formations of the unconscious.

The “fixions” of the jouissance of the symptom remain. They are less ephemeral, where the cipher appears [advient] as letter, the only one to be identical to itself, namely outside the chain and non-substitutable, thus an exception. Their advent is without law, contingent, being excepted from the programs of the discourse of the Other and this is, if we believe Lacan, what LOM[6] – which he writes in three letters and who is made between the symbolic and the imaginary – has that is most real. In all the cases where there is an advent of the real, whatever this might be for the collective or for the individual, it is a product of this strange capacity LOM has to make everything into language, from the mysteries of a nature that go beyond him and that science seeks to master, as much as from the jouissance thing that embraces him in the particular of cases and that is precisely the motor of languages [langues] in constant evolution. The psychoanalyst makes use of it, but to what end? Translated by Susan Schwartz
1. Lacan, J., "On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis". Ecrits, The First Complete Edition in English. Trans. B. Fink. New York and London, W.W. Norton & Company. p. 449. Translation modified.
2. Ibid.
3. There is a play on words around “heur” which means “happiness” and heure, with which it is homophonic and which means “hour”, thus suggesting time and the moment of the good encounter.
4. Lacan, J., "Geneva Lecture on the Symptom", trans. R. Grigg, Analysis No 1, pp. 5-26.
5. Ibid. p. 15
6. LOM is homophonic with l’homme, (the) man.


Twenty years have passed since the creation of the International Forums of the Lacanian Field following the initiative taken by some of us in July 1998. This creation constituted a new path, a path in accordance with the one Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan opened up, a path that emerged as a movement of counter-experience, with the aim of creating a School of Psychoanalysis. That School was effectively born in 2001.

Twenty years later, we – the founders and many others – will meet again in Barcelona on the occasion of the Xth Meeting of the IF-SPFLF and the VIth International Encounter of the School. We have some essential elements at our disposal: the impetus of the desire of the International Community, the compromise between the Forum of Barcelona and the other Spanish forums in order that the organization could proceed smoothly and, the title of the Meeting which will serve as an axis for structuring the work of that Community in the meantime.

The Advents of the Real and the Psychoanalyst. This is an enigmatic title because of the semantics of the term “advent”, the use of the plural to express the plurality of the elements that can be real, and also the plurality of the meanings of that term, from “what comes back to the same place” and constitutes an obstacle to well-being, to the real of what can overflow. It is enigmatic also because of the complex relationship between the two terms and the dependence of the second one upon the first. But there is not only that…

If, as Lacan affirmed in “La Troisième”, the future of the analyst depends upon what of the real happens (and not the other way around), what consequences do these advents have on social links and in particular on the analytic discourse, the one that binds the analysand to the couple analyst-analysand?

Therefore, it is a title that makes us question, that keeps us awake and that will put us to work. There does not exist any advent of the real that will not cut the illusory and wished for experience of continuity in the speaking-being, whether that be the trauma of the Other as constitutive, or the real of the jouissance of the body, or the accident or, again, the progress of science. This is to say that every advent of the real implies an effect, an immediate effect that is affect – anxiety – and also other effects, albeit more silent, that remain incalculable. They spread through the social sphere and, as we can see, they do not cease to produce new forms of segregation. It is not up to the psychoanalyst to reduce the advents of the real, but the psychoanalyst can respond. He can, as Lacan says, counter the real.

Rosa Escapa and Ramon Miralpeix, General Coordination