Real castllano
Xth Meeting - PRE-TEXTS
An advent of saying >> Adriana Grosman PDF
Advent to the desire of the analyst >> Julieta De Battista PDF
The inferences of the “not-all” in the clinic and in the enunciation >> Carmen Lafuente PDF
Regarding the real advented in analysis >> Elisabete Thamer PDF
Breaching the barrier of modesty: the advent of the real of sex >> Susan Schwartz PDF
The re-advent of the real >> Colette Soler PDF
¿Politics of the real? >> Patricia Muñoz PDF
The advents of the real in the psychoanalytic clinic and in civilization >> Silvia Migdalek PDF
Advents of the real>> Diego Mautino PDF
Pre-text 3 >> Rithée Cevasco PDF
Trauma: event and advent of the real >> Sandra Berta PDF
Advent of the real >> Colette Soler PDF
Twenty years...(presentation) R. Escapa y R. Miralpeix  
Related texts

– Avènements du réel (French)
– Advenimientos de lo real
Colette Soler's presentation in Gijón
(27 May 2017)

– Sur la politique
. (French)
(English) Reflections by Colette Soler (November 2017)

No meio caminho tinha o objeto a, sobre a noção de acontecimento em Lacan. Text by Clarice Gatto (Portuguese)

VIth E Scholl - The School and the Discourses. What joy do we find in our work?
What ́s at stake >> Sandra Berta PDF
From the discourse of the Other to the other discourse >> Jean-Pierre Drapier PDF
De gaye science à la joie >> Clara Cecilia Mesa PDF
Note to joy >> Fréderic Pellion PDF
Preliminar 2 >> Marcelo Mazzuca PDF
Initial development of this theme >> Marc Strauss PDF

An advent of saying
Adriana Grosman, Pre-text 12 for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018

Thinking about the advent of the Real, gives talk! Perhaps this is what most says about our practice, where the Real, different from reality, which never ceases to be said, is taken into account, which separates this practice, ours, from all others. Adding the psychoanalyst there, because there is not without it, we can differentiate it from other therapists and also health professionals who increasingly respond to our culture of haste, well-being and false band-aids offered to crooked and right to care for suffering.

At first loneliness. Are we alone? It seems so, in the world, as psychoanalysts and on the couch as speaking subjects. We can speak of it, of solitude, the world outside, often without echo, it is not simple this apprehension. When we perceive it gives the air to make weight and noise, but soon after we get confused, better said by the poet Machado de Assis, the encounter with loneliness "were not blows of pendulum, it was a dialogue of the abyss, a whisper of nothingness".

There is no other way out of the Other-partner / accomplice of neurosis, except for the experience of solitude, decision, and link that psychoanalysis provides exceptionally, as Fingermann says[1].

Until then, we try by any ways to manipulate words until they conquered, they form some meaning, trying to sew something from nothingness, from absence, from insignificance, seeking to end the mysterious, this one that points to the real, way forward, without knowing. Doubtful path precisely because of the mystery caused by not knowing that it is pointing in another direction.

Path accompanied by seams and moorings, of the fantasy built precisely to take care of the horror of the moment to see the advent that causes the subject.

It even looks like a "miracle" when something of this order appears, one does not want to know if it imposes itself and puts down the fantasy of being. Difficult, then, to sustain the unknowable, the thing, the unconscious.

It is difficult to get used to and replace this imposition, which is what language provokes, imposition of being, of this "we never have anything"[2] .

It is always about semblance [parecer][3], thesis of Lacan in Encore. There he will say that it is at the point where the paradoxes arise that the being presents itself, and never presents itself but "stop-being" [pare-ser], that to advance what refers to "this sexual relationship, from which it is clear that in everything that comes close to it, language is manifested only in its insufficiency"[4].

The 'I already know' displayed by the known serves not to read, not to entangle the body and to defend itself from the anguish, from the emptiness that is between each letter, so ex-sists another writing that is not to be understood. Only a new encounter with language will allow the subject to recognize what was already written, the language that was already there. The feeling of anguish hinders, overshadows, makes even horror. This encounter with the real, is not presented in a quiet and rounded way, it appears and faces us as simply as this, it is presented. On the other hand, it appears and disappears. It is not easy to apprehend it, remember the child's joke, the one that Freud brilliantly illustrated and nicknamed fortune, not only in relation to the appearance and disappearance, but the absence at stake there, bringing back the question of loneliness, beyond the absence of the mother. In this way, the advent of the real when it appears, surprises and gives the tone of "miracle" or clarity, as Thamer says[5].

How do we hear of that unapprehensible and unspeakable, therefore? Soler[6] retakes the expression "advent of the real" -our title- added by the psychoanalyst to speak that "the psychoanalyst only has, in principle, a policy -that of psychoanalysis-, since its object is the clinic of subjects under transference in analytical discourse.That is where we must interrogate what comes from the real and that could interest our moment of civilization- if we know how to make ourselves heard and understood ", to hear from this place.

Not without reason, the psychoanalyst is in this place of listening to guide an analysis to its end. He is the one who holds this place of semblance, of not responding to the demand of the other and making the fantasy that sustains desire, which tries to make the sexual relationship exist, be crossed.

The psychoanalytic treatment walks around, through the tours of what has been said, where the saying can be found, as Lacan clarifies in L´étourdit, the "saying does not go without saying it" and "the saying is forgotten behind what has been said". This takes up the old distinction between the subject of enunciation and the subject of the statement to propose the opposition between the said or stated [o dito] and the saying [o dizer][7], thus, the saying of the analysand destined to the analyst's listening, that is, to the Other, "to be said", will produce a saying, inaugurating the entry of the analysand in the analytical discourse.

Soler[8] speaks of courage "to renounce the complaint to face the fate that his unconscious produced", referring to the end of analysis.

I was wondering, from there, how would be the transmission of an end and what would be possible to hear of the advent of saying. Or, what happens, in that transmission, of what happened in a pass, for example, an examination of what an analyst does when deciding to place himself as an analyst, at the moment of the testimony, when he offers his knowledge 'not known' to others . Is it still courage here?

From a living unconscious, the subject gives samples, is given itself to the sample in the pass to point to the real at stake, from his own turns, not knowing what it is exactly, it is not from history (hystoricisation) that it is, and is no longer the meaning, the target.

What I could link from this experience, as advent of the saying [o dizer], to think about that encounter, were two points collected from one of my first testimonies; I realized that I had made a series of three first ones.

The first was the encounter with Lacan´s text, D'ecolage, unknown to me until now, but interesting because it names me desolate, at the end of the analysis, referring to a new relationship with enjoyment. Lacan in this text speaks of the end, too, of the dissolution of the school to the Freudian cause, with the phrase, "I have tried to inspire another yearning, to ex-sist, and I have triumphed." This is marked by concerns with that the return to the path is contorted, "suggests thinking what prevents the return of the equal and the care of thinking about the school and its tail-glue effect "de colle", as well as, the question of schooling, where it is remembering its principles, retakes the cartel, base organ and perfects its formalization.

It makes me think about the passage from the end of the analysis to the request for the pass, in my case, as two different moments, that is, the approach with the school in this second moment.

The second point would be, the out-of-the school analyst [a analista d-escuela-da] a know-how with the symptom, singular name that comes out of this experience of saying, advent of the real, not without the link with the school, field of the psychoanalyst.

When taking off I was able to raise "flight" of the analysis, that takes to the pass and to the nomination. When answering the questions of the two different moments, of the end of analysis and of the pass, with a large interval between them, I return to the question of emptiness and anguish, it is not without it, that I return to the analysis after the end, to face, again, with the advent of the real (re-advent), when there I was presented to my new friend empty set and so the decision to speak. For the pass, new link with the school, "you see becoming a voice"[9] was a way of doing something with it, talking about the analyst's desire.

I must say that this is not a small discovery! Desire to transmit that contingent and impossible newly discovered. And that is only possible in the link with the school, possible place for the impossible to say, possible place to take to "serious" that singular advent. It is another know-how not to do without remembering the risk of glue [cola], of schooling [escolarização], of falling into the old track.

Translation. Matías Buttini


1. Fingermann, D. – “ A (de)formação do Psicanalista: as considerações do ato psicanalítico”, escuta, SP, 2016, p. 16. Translator ́s note: All bibliographical citations in the text responds to the original portuguese version.
2. Lacan, J. (1972-1973) – Encore, Escola da Letra Freudiana, RJ, 2010, p. 115.
3. Translator ́s note: It ́s difficult to translate this portuguese and spanish word "parecer" and it ́s word plays "pare- ser". We decided to put "semblance" as the most accurate sinonim and "stop-being" as the litteral word play translation and put the original between parenthesis for a better comprehension.
4. Ibid, p. 116.
5. Thamer, E., Pré texto 9 ao tema do X encontro 2018
6. Soler, C., Pré-texto 7 ao tema do X encontro 2018.
7. We asist to a similar problem here between o dito in portuguese, "el dicho" in spanish and or "o dizer" in portuguese, "el decir" in spanish. We decided to leave the original words between parenthesis for a better comprehension. [TN]
8. Soler, C., Pré-texto 7 ao tema do X encontro 2018.
9. LACAN, J. (1967), “Proposição de 09 de outubro de 1967 sobre o psicanalista da Escola” In: Outros escritos. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2003, p. 260.

Advent to the desire of the analyst
Julieta De Battista, Pre-text 11 for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018

I will begin with something that impacted me from my experience in the dispositif of the pass: the emergence of some symptomatic remainders, along with the tendency to not acknowledge them. If the passage from analyzand to the desire of the analyst touches the real, how does that which tends to be unacknowledged or denied pass? During the work of analysis the real is faced making use of the unconscious knowledge until its hole is produced. The pass gathers in part the meanders of that itinerary. Yet in the demand of the pass it is no longer unknown that the matter touches the real, the experience of analysis has yielded that balance. However, the real at issue is unacknowledged anew in the dispositif of the pass. 

Then I believe that there is a first decision that concerns the demand of the pass, that of “facing the real”, still. Facing that which, in spite of having been analysed, continues to insist. Facing the remainders of analysis, what has remained outside it. Perhaps it’s part of the risk that is run when venturing in this “tentative of apprehension”1that attempts to capture what was it that made someone decide to satisfy those cases en souffranceas I like to call them.

That first step would be that of an authorization to hystorizise oneself. The bet on hystorization can be met with a manifestation in the real. The work on hystorization produces its hole as well. The "historiole"2  could be more attractive for the transmission: the vicissitudes of phantasy and its itineraries, the loops of the comedy of sexes signaled by the non rapport, the curse of the troumatismeThe real ex-sists the work of hystorizatiothat the passant begins and is manifested. 

I understand then that neither the work of hystorization nor arriving to the end of analysis are sufficient to shed some light on the abismal gap that is opened between the end of analysis and the pass from analysand to analyst. May this be about the mourning of the end or about the identification to the symptom? From my experience I can say that this mourning of the word that doesn't cure of the real did not lead to the desire of the analyst. The desire of the analyst would not follow from the finalization of the mourning by substitution. That mourning could also turn into a swinging door, or plunge one into depression. Neither in my case the identification to the symptom, that know-how-to-do, would be enough to throw some light onto the passage from analyzand to analyst.

Iwhat I have been able to extract initially from my experience in the dispositif of the pass neither the fall of the Subject supposed to knowledge, nor the dismantlement of the phantasmatic security, nor the identificatioto the symptom, nor the mourning of the end allow to capture anything about that "other reason". That other reason that may take someone not to be an analyst, or want to be it, but to the desire of the analyst. However, this does not imply that reaching the end of analysis, having finalized the mourning isn't necessary. Only that it does not seem sufficient. An analysis could yield an analyzed3  and not an analystAn end of analysis can produce “a official of the analytic discourse".4

In 1973 Lacan speaks of a condition that attempts to capture something of the real at play in the desire of the analyst: to have circumvented the cause of their own horror to knowing. An analyst made of this can host a knowledge other, a knowledge not-all: to know how to be a waste. But this would not be enough either. Lacan adds: “If this does not lead him to enthusiasm, there might have been analysis, but no chance that there might be an analyst".5  The melancholic end does not make the analyst. Having circumscribed the cause of his horror to knowledge touches a real, but this may not lead to enthusiasm. It must be possible to separate the chaff from the grainbut in also to transform the grain in something else.

Sicut-paleato find an analyst made of that waste. Lacan mentions twice this expression of Saint Thomas Aquinas to refer to the analyst“The passage from analysand to analyst has a door whose hinge is that waste (...)".6  Even in Télévision Lacan attempts to situate the analyst in respect to the saint as a waste of jouissanceAnd he clarifies that to do waste, not charity, but rather “decharitize"allows the subject of the unconscious to take him as the cause of his desire7 . The analystwaste of the jouissense, causes the desirfor psychoanalysis.

Which could be the reasons for the emergence of this enthusiasm after confirming that other knowledge, knowing how to be a wastePerhaps it could be attributed to the end of the mourning, which would imply more libidinal disposition. Yet this would not be enough for someone to decide to occupy the place of the analyst. What mutation enters into play here to transform the waste in analytic cause? How are those remainders turned on, those wastes that fall from the work of knowledge? In 1964 Lacan emphasised the fecundity of the remains in the human destiny, different from the scoria which is no more than a “sterile remain".8  The waste is not the scoria. 

The experience of the pass was for me an opportunity to go back over those wastes which, although unacknowledged, became present as symptomatic remaindersAn opportunity to face the horror to the act. In my case, the dispositif of the pass allowed gathering those remains to inaugurate other know-how-to-do with them that includes the school. Some spark may emerge there. The pass dignifies those wastes, it tuns them on, it works with those remains from the analysis, it makes them resonate. It discovers that with those powdery wastes other sonorities may awaken, polyphonic ones.

I found that the international dimension of our school may favor that musicality and I found also that the desire of the analyst may not be the result of a work. In my experience, it does not seem to be the result of an analysis, nor the one of its end. The word “result” or “product" may not be all that convenient here. Lacan speaks rather of “finding oneself in” the desire of the analyst9 “see oneselfbecome a voice10 It is an exit that allows to enter into something else. 

I wondered then if the term "adventcould be more convenient to the desire of the analyst. Lacan utilizes this term to refer to desire in the first version of the proposition. If the desire of the analyst is not the result of a process, perhaps it may be an emergence, an advent, a contingent encounter. 

The term "adventis not of frequent use in Spanish, it even has a sonority that is difficult to pronounce in that language. Differently, in French it has another music, that makes it resonate with "événement", eventThe etymological root, knowledge deposited in language, gives certain precedence in the use to avènementwhich sends us back to advenireWe find here different shades that include that which comes by accident, contingently, that which comes in luck to someone, but also -and only in the case of avènement, not in événementthe elevation to a dignity.

IFrench avènement was used to refer to the arrival to the throne, for example. And it even has a religious connotation, of judging, inasmuch as it is used to name the two arrivals of the Messiah. Lets leave aside the mere elevation, the escabel, to conserve the resonance of the elevation to a dignity and its perfume of creation. On the other hand, it surprised me to find that in ancient times there was a verb that conjugated what advents -advenir-, with what is touched or reached -atteindre-. Iold French existed the verb "aveindre", which implied then not only what comes, but also what is touched by chance in the effort to want to reach other thingswhich can in fact fall from the place where they were accommodated inIt is a reach that doesn't reach, a failed reach. There existed for example the expression "aveindre ce désir".11

The desire of the analyst could advent by contingence, not without effort, yet without intentionality. Lacan stressed enough that wanting to be an analyst nothing has to do with the desire of the analyst.12  The desire of the analyst emerges, it happens, advents without wanting it to, it is found.

Something is transformed in that advent. Perhaps that transformation will leave a mark in the saying of the fundamental rule. Having attempted to circumvent the cause of one’s own horror to knowledge could be inverted in effects of creation and elevate those remains to the dignity of the cause.

Translation: Gabriela Zorzutti

 Lacan, J. (1973). Intervention au Congrès de l'EFP sur l'expérience de la passe, p. 192. 
2  Lacan, J. (1973). L'étourdit. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil, p. 480. 
3  Lacan, J. (1973). L'étourdit. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil, p. 493. 
4  Lacan, J. (1974). Nota a aquellos susceptibles de designar pasadores. 
5  Lacan, J. (1973). Note italienne. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil, p. 309.
6  Lacan, J. (1967). Proposition du 9 octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste de l'École. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil, p. 254.
7  Lacan, J. (1974). Télévision. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil, p. 519.
8  Lacan, J. (1964). Le séminaire. Livre XI. Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse. Paris: Seuil, p. 122. 
9  Lacan, J. (1967). Discours à l'École freudienne de Paris. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil, p. 266.
10  Lacan, J. (1967). Proposition du 9 octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste de l'École. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil, p. 254.
11  (...) et il m'aurait fallu longtemps remonter la route, sur des hauteurs oubliées et perdues, pour retrouver ce désir, pour «aveindre» ce désir! Alain-Fournier, Correspondance [Avec J. Rivière], 1906, p. 113. Citado en Littré.
12  Lacan, J. (1967). Discours à l'École freudienne de Paris. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil, p. 271.

The inferences of the “not-all” in the clinic and in the enunciation
Carmen Lafuente, Pre-text 10 for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018

“You have satisfied me little-man. You realised, it is what was missing”.
Jacques Lacan. L’é́tourdit

For this work I have taken as a starting point the following paragraph of Ritheé Cevazco´s pretext about the “saying not-all”.

“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.” [2]

I propose to reflect in this pre-text on the possibility of a “saying not all”, and its consequences in the analytic clinic and at the end of an analysis.

The sayings of the sexes

As we know in the unconscious there is only one sexual reality and consequently analytic practice imposes the maledicción [3]of sex. But if we follow Lacan in his formulas of sexuation we find at least two ways of relating to sex. How can we address this complex reality?

If on the one hand the unconscious knows nothing about the other sexual reality, that of the right hand of the formulas, this might lead us to think that the “not all” part is left out of an analysis. If phallic jouissance may only be accessed via the unconscious then the manifestations of jouissance Other, which are not inconsiderable, would not not enter into an analysis.

But the unconscious does not only exist as knowledge, but also as the saying which is inferred from the statements of the subject. Colette Soler reminds us in her magnificent article about the sexed saying[4], that Lacan says in Encore:

“…only in the saying can the dfferential incidence of its jouissance be found, as the saying is the incarnation of the difference of sex. It is introduced as a third between truth and the real. The signified of the saying is the ex-istencia, and the different encarnations of the sayings of the sexes are left to be specified and to question that which may exist of the saying on the side of the Other sexual reality.”

In that case, would it be possible to speak of a saying “not-all” in spite of the fact that Lacan repeatedly tells us that the “not-all” is beyond the signifier and that nothing can be said of it? We remember that in Encore he highlights the fact that women analysts say nothing of their jouissance and that this could be attributed to the structure itself.

Lacan does not mention that there could be a saying Other, but the question is to know how the Other in the inscription of language passes to the act of the saying. In LÉtourdit,[5] by way of the figure of the surmoitié , he mentions that for females, ways of their saying ex-ist. In women then, there is not only one way of the saying, there are at least two; given that we can account for that of the phallus and that of the barred A with which the woman has more of a relationship, by nature of the fact that she is Other because of her jouissance. We can find manifestations of this saying of the surmoitié in the clinic and in the enunciation.

Inferences of the “not-all”

In what follows, I will highlight some of the references which have seemed to me particulary prominent in helping us to elucidate the question of the inferences of the “not-all”.

To begin with, we can´t leave out mentioning the ecstasy of the mystics which Lacan develops in Encore. I also remember references worked on by Colette Soler some years ago in relation to Ysé[6], the protaganist of Paul Claudel´s book, who Lacan evokes in Seminar VIII and relates to the “not all”. Colette Soler evokes an annihalting negativity which co-relates to an absolutization of love. The same text makes reference to the poor wife of Leon Bloy[7] which we also find in Seminar VIII .

The opposition

Another proposition of this saying “not-all” is that developed by the same autor in the article mentioned about The sexed saying or the Other sexual reality. It deals with the opposition. The saying of the “not-all” passes through the ways of “this isn´t it” or “this isn´t everything”:

It is a non-recognition of the only way which is not always enunciated and which is sometimes confirmed in silence. More than a negation it is a formula which serves as entrenchment.[8]

The author clarifies that this no is not that of hysteria or that which is outside of discourse in psychosis. It is the mediating héterité, always neighbourly and sometimes even homely which inhabits the collective fantasies that are plagued with fairies and witches. It is entrenched otherness which is nevertheless attached to the phallic and to the object which Lacan designated with the term confín.

We mustn´t forget that the saying is always saying no to the statements, suspending what the statement has of truthfulness, as it doesn´t matter what there is of truth, as the truth of the real cannot be said.

The non-discordancial

The emptiness of the Other gives a particular style to its relationship with the phallus which is sensitive in the enunciation of female subjects. Lacan illustrates this with a grammatical figure taken from Damourette and Pichon[9] This is the so called the non-discordancial and is different to the non-forcluded negation in French. This non-discordancial can be used in French and also in Catalan. An example would be the phrase: Je crains quìl ne vienne pas. En el Je crains quíl ne vienne there is a vacilation represented by the no; we don´t know if the subject fears whether he comes or not. There is an ambiguity.

G Morel´s work[10] was based on the way in which Lacan re-used the term discordancial to speak about the enunciation in feminine subjects and of a particular position of the subject which would be in permanent discordance, as signalled by the unfolding of jouissance in the feminine subject. Lacan exemplifies wih the different works of Marivaux. In The Transvestite Prince the feminine discourse is found in the following kind of manifestation: je ne sais, which is a barely veiled confession and which can be in opposition to Je ne sais pas which is the rejection of hysterical knowledge. The veiled confession has a relationship to the half saying, with the not-all. In The Transvestite Prince, the heroine, Hortensia, is not in a hysterical position, but rather in a position which we might call feminine. She accepts what comes her way, she does not shrink from it, she accepts the tyche. There is however an oscilation, the part of the absence which which slides around in the discourse, due to the fact that she is structurally divided, she isn´t everything for him and she says to him, perhaps without knowing: “I wouldn´t dare…I wouldn´t agree…I wouldn´t know”.


In Camila Vidal´s pass testimony[11], we find a symptom which allows us to circumscribe something of feminine jouissance. We read there:

I have always had problems remembering proper nouns, not only those of people, but also of streets, venues, book titles...a symptom which has put me in embarrassing situations...complicating my everyday life.

The result of all this was the sensation that I never felt aware of things and couldn´t be specific, I always felt I was walking a tightrope. From early on I rejected discovering an explanation for this forgetfulness as the enormity of the symptom led to a rejection of whatever kind of interpretation in the style of the Freudian Mr Signorelli, and so I spent years attributing to others this fading desire which was attributed to myself….

“It is as if I dont want to submit myself to something of the symbolic” I said one day to my analyst after having related an unpleasant incident which had happened to me with someone close...given that it is in fact so simple to meet in a particular café in a particular street, rather than go through all this roundabout hassle which leaves me in a state of indetermination and disagreement. Simplicity is for others whilst I am left in another place.

This indetermined permanence, outside of phallic jouissance, this lack of a limit which surrounds proper nouns doesn´t leave much space for the decided desire given that all stong desire is limited and concrete.”

The mother-daughter ravage and the surmoitié[10]

Some questions which I would like to develop and which I take from my own analysis are the mother-daughter ravage and the surmoitié as manifestations of this Other part and the way they have been disassembled in my analysis. The ravage as it is mentioned by Lacan in the University of Yale conferences, is a devestating relationship between mother and daughter which consists of a state of reproach and disharmony between them. It is not a structure which is generalizable to all the the realations of a mother with a daughter. It is not a structural element and, in treating it as a manifestation of Other jouisance, it is contingent. This mother-daughter ravage manifests in some women and it denotes a difficulty in assuming a feminine position, with manifestations in the body, and in their relationships.

In her book, What Lacan Said about Women: A Psychoanalytic Study, Colette Soler says:

“Beyond this right-claiming dimension is there not a request made to the mother to reveal the ultimate secret? Not only of the feminine agalma, which is always phallic, but also of the jouissance which ex-ists but which is ignored by the Other and which therefore leads, as a consequence, to a woman´s appeal to the Other.”[13]

In the clinic there are examples of rigourously conducted cures in which the ravage makes its entrance. This testifies to a structural, clinical real which must be treated. In my own case, after my previous analysis, a transferencial super-ego remainder was left which manifested itself as an inhibition in presenting myself for the pass, and in which I made the Other guilty. The mother daughter ravage appeared in this symptom in which the daughter blames her lack on the maternal Other, a symptom which on occasion manifests in the transference and which takes a ravaged form. An interpretation began to unravel this subjective complaint. “This is infantile” said the analyst, which allowed me to understand that I had perpetuated this daughter´s demand of the mother, who she made responsible for her lack, and the neurotic hope collapsed.

La surmoitié

In L'Étourdit, Lacan speaks to us of the surmoitié, a neologism, hybrid between surmoi and ma moitíe which is how soulmate or Adam´s rib is designated in French. With regard to her, he tells us that she doesn´t let herself be dominated by the super-ego as easily as the universal conscience. It isn´t the Freudian super-ego linked to the prohibition of phallic jouisance but on the contrary, it is a feminine voice which propels the jouisance.

It is very important to be aware of the logic of the not-all in analyses and in the conclusión of the cure as it is a way to treat the super-ego which is the push towards jouissance.

In my case, this dimension of the surmoité took the form of equivocation. In my analysis I related my mother´s death and its tragic circumstances which generated an appalling sense of guilt in me. When she died I spent those days in my parent´s house although I wanted to go and sleep with my ex-boyfriend who she hadn´t approved of. The day of her demise, before I left home, she spoke to me from a distance and from behind a blind: “Carmen, make the bed”. I didn´t see her, she didn´t see me, but I heard her.

The analyst stressed the AS[14], which surprised me greatly, as I had always related the super ego to my father. My mother was adored, idealized. But now there appeared another aspect of the idealization, the devouring super-ego. This new meaning which appeared, the ace, the best , leaves an opening to other possible meanings and produces the emergence of a new signifier outside of the chain, a master signifier, a signifier of jouissance. With respect to the interpretation “haz/AS”we have the double side of the ways of the saying. The “haz” which is a call to have, clearly phallic and the “AS” which may be considered as the transmission of something else, the being best in relation to the feminine. But it is articulated with guilt and could be interpreted in the following way: “If I enjoy, she dies”. It was necessary to dismantle this figure of the impulse towards jouisance, of the “Haz/as”, to reach the awareness that there is not an Other of the Other, to the incompleteness of the deadly seperation.

At the end of the analysis, the sense of this “as” being depleted, it would be left as a letter identical to itself but beyond meaning, a littoral between the symbolic and the real, to which it set a limit.[15] It marks the fall of the surmoitiè for the subject.

M. Bousseyroux[16] points out thet Lacan declines the forms of the saying of the surmoitié which are inconsistent, undemostrable, unspeakable and refute the Other although they might also not bar the Other and so complete her. The super-ego´s voice, as much as if it completes or if it refutes the Other is de-consistent. Even more so if we take into account the saying of women which follows the logical course of the “not-all” and inscribes itself beyond the Oedipus and hence beyond the Freudian super-ego. .

What must be considered

The paradox of the feminine unfolding of the jouissance makes that which is more visible, the relationship to the phallus, to be neither the only nor the most important consideration. The rock of castration is sifted by the relationship to this jouisance Other which in spite of being less visible doesn´t stop having effects. One mustn´t look for its manifestations in the unconscious but rather in the saying, in a jouissance which infiltrates the enunciation and which may also have effects in the phallic dimension which is the determination of the subject.

The jouissance Other, suplementary to the phallic, is not a lottery. It provokes anxiety, it doesn´t identify, it de-personalises.

The analyst cannot deny this Other sexual reality which cannot be repressed and is not always calmed by love which we know is difficult to find and conserve in our current society. We must become aware of this real of the feminine position which is sometimes confused with hysterical symptoms or psychosis leading to a false ending of the cure.

The analyst mustn´t retreat in the face of this unyielding real which manifests, perhaps more for the not-all than for anyone else, and is frequently accompanied by anxiety and pain, but which must be considered and addressed in order to be able to accompany a subject to the end.

Translated by Richard Barrett

[1] Translators´s translation
[2] From original translation of pre-text by Susan Schwarz
[3] Lacan uses this term which has a phonetic double meaning in French between maldición(curse) and machodicción (male-diction)
[4] Hétérité 6, Revue de psychanalyse, Les réalités sexuelles et l’inconscient, 2007: "Le dire, sexué ou L’Autre réalité sexuelle"(The sexed saying or the Other sexual reality)
[5] Lacan,J.: L’ Étourdit. Otros Escritos. Ed. Du Seuil
[6] Soler, C.: Le pas tout. La Cause Freudienne. 1991.
[7] Bloy, L. La mujer pobre. Alfama Ed.
[8] Ibid. See 4 above. Translator´s translation.
[9] Edouard PICHON & Jacques DAMOURETTE, Des mots à la pensée. Essai de grammaire de la langue française, éd. d’Artrey.
[10] Morel,G.: Oedipe aujourd’hui. Séminaire théorique.1997
[11] Vidal C.: Niebla. Pliegues 7. FFCL-España
[12] Lafuente C.: Espacio Escuela. La caída de la Surmoitié. Web del FPB- EPFCL [13] Translator´s translation
[14] Homophone in Spanish between haz(make) and as(ace)
[15] Thanks for this aportación go to Trinidad Sánchez de Biedma
[16] Bousseyroux,N.: Real de mujeres. Pliegues de la Biblioteca. FFCL-España

Regarding the real advented in analysis
Elisabete Thamer, Pre-text 9 for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018

Deviens qui tu es, quand tu l’auras appris.
Γένοι’ οἷος ἐσσὶ μαθών.
Werde, welcher du bist, erfahren.” [1]
Pindare, Pythiques, II, vers 72

I return to a question posed by Rithée Cervazco and Colette Soler, in Pre-texts 3 and 7 respectively, which I would reformulate in the following way: Would there be an advent, or rather a re-advent, in and through an analysis of the real. If this is so, how would this happen in a speech practice. What are the consequences?

In the report of the seminar “…or worse”, Lacan affirms that the analytic procedure, invented by Freud, is a process “through which the real touches the real”[2]. In that case, if the analytic procedure is, according to Lacan, essentially that of free asociation[3], we must admit, that this speech practice includes, in its own excercise, the possible advent of a certain real.

Lacan´s affirmation can be clarified by the matheme of the analytic discourse which it articulated, and which includes two impossibilities. The first, that of the “real which touches”, is written in the upper part of the matheme, between a and S/, and describes the analytic process: the object cause of the speech of the analyzand which cannot however state its object or eliminate the division of the subject. The other, that of the “real touched” by the analysis is written in the lower part with the barrier which seperates truth and production (S2//S1) The S1 is considered to be the first signifier, master signifier or lettre jouie, it will not be unified with the S2 which is considered to be the second, or to be knowledge. This shows us that the analytic discourse in itself is installed in the heart of the experience, the posible conditions through which a particular real advents in and through the analysis

Is this essential for the end of the analysis?

In the seventies, Lacan redefined the symptom and the unconscious, relocating its hard core towards the real: “the symptom is the real”[4]. The interest of this change of direction is therefore clinical and it principally refers to the end of analysis and the pass. How could an analysis be succesful in “touching the real” without a new advent of the real which is this time advented in the cure?

Obviously an analysis cannot re-edit or return to an advent of the previous real. Nor can it raise that which is Urverdrängt or liberate access to the letter of the coalescing symptom, which, by defenition seems to me impossible. What it entails is that the analyzand can reach a place of aprehending, through the analysis, that the real is what is at the heart of his symptom, as it is in other formations of the unconscious. There is not a finished analysis in which the analyzand hasn´t been able to experience (and prove) that the bedrock of his unconscious is real, including the decyphering of the refractory symptom.

This is not an easy task because the speaking being has had the propensity to make sense of everything which happens to him, to decipher his dreams -the ancient testimonies are full of this ( see the satire / sa-Tyr of Alexander or the Sacred Discourses of Aelius Aristide[5]). These are all examples which corroborate what Lacan affirmed in the same report, namely, that the unconscious has in the symbolic “its preformed material”[6]. The challenge of analysis is then, to respond in a different way to the demand for interpretation, to the demand for sense, that is to say to interpret in a different way, to finally cut this “semantophilic whirlwind”[7] which the subject is in love with.

According to Lacan´s indications, which are confirmed by certain testimonies of the pass, the unconscious knowledge which belongs to the ICSR, that is to say that which is beyond sense, is an undersstanding which manifests itself. It manifests itself as being beyond sense in the limited time of its manifestation, like a reduced time-lag, as a flash[8], because there is no possible attendance of this real. The fact that this knowledge manifests itself means that it escapes, for the first time, the interprative, historicizing musings of the analysis.

This moment happens at the same time as a cut of sense and the supposed knowlege of the analyst. The fruit of the analytic discourse would be placed there because, in putting an end to transferential expectations, this advent of the real promoted by the analysis paves the way towards the identification with the symptom or in other words that which is left to bear.

The unconscious has always been equally “real” from the beginning until the end of the analysis, the problem is that the speaking being makes sense of all his enjoyments. Hence the dimension, which cannot be programmed by the structure of the analytic discourse with regard to the end of analysis, because every subject has more or less propensity to enjoy the sense of the search for truth.

This return to the beyond of sense, which is without doubt ephemeral, marks a point of no return in the demand of the analyzand, the effects of which are on the side of the subject: an enjoyable surprise, an irrevocable deflation of the enjoyment of sense. This is what constitutes the final test, not the musings which can be extracted from it.

This re-advent of the real in analysis, given the fact that it clarifies the true nature of the what has gone before, troumatique[9], overthrows the symptom typically correlated with it: without anxiety but rather with the enjoyable emotions which we call enthusiasm, satisfaction, joy…So many positive effects which, affecting the subject and his body, indicate that the analysis has ended.[10] The subject can finally leave to the real that which belongs to the real.

[1] Pindare, Pythiques II, vers 72 ; trad. allemande Friedrich Hölderlin, dans Sämtliche Werke und Briefe, v. 3, Berlin, Aufbau Verlag, 1995, p. 278. (N.del T : en español sólo he encontrado : Píndaro (1995). Odas y fragmentos: Olímpicas; Píticas; Nemeas; Ístmicas; Fragmentos. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
[2] J. Lacan, « …ou pire » [Compte rendu], dans Scilicet 5, Paris, Seuil, 1975, p. 6 ; Autres écrits, Paris, Seuil, 2001, p. 548.
[3] J. Lacan, « La psychanalyse dans ses rapports avec la réalité », dans Scilicet 1, Paris, Seuil, 1968, p. 51 ; dans Autres écrits, op . cit., p. 351.
[4] J. Lacan, Le Séminaire « RSI », inédit, leçon du 19 novembre 1974.
[5] Pour le rêve d’Alexandre, voir S. Freud, L’interprétation du rêve, trad. J. Altounian et al., PUF, « Quadrige », p. 134, note 2 ; Aelius Aristide, Discours sacrées, introd. et trad., A. J. Festugière, Paris, Macula, 1986.
[6] J. Lacan, J. Lacan, « …ou pire » [Compte rendu], dans Scilicet 5, Paris, Seuil, 1975, p. 6 ; Autres écrits, Paris, Seuil, 2001, p. 548.
[7] J. Lacan, « L’étourdit », dans Scilicet 4, Paris, Seuil, 1973, p. 51 ; dans Autres écrits, op. cit., p. 494
[8] Voir J. Lacan, « Intervention de Jacques Lacan. Séance du vendredi 2 novembre (après-midi) », dans Lettres de l’École Freudienne, 1975, n° 15, p. 69.
[9] Troumatique: neologismo entre traumatique (traumático) y trou, agujero
[10] Pour le néologisme « effect », voir C. Soler, Les Affects lacaniens, Paris, PUF, 2011, p. VIII.

Breaching the barrier of modesty: the advent of the real of sex [1]
Susan Schwartz, Pre-text 8 for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018

What might the image of Venus, or indeed of Lolita, teach analysts, Lacan asks in 1961, in the final lesson of Seminar VIII, The Transference. He has been speaking about the relation between the object of desire – the essential trait in analytic experience in its functions as both partial object and fundamental obturator – and its libidinal effect with regard to narcissism and its central core. The phallus is that around which the maximum investment is conserved and the partial object is elided, left blank in the image that has been so invested. In this context he introduces Botticelli’s Venus, the dazzling form of Venus “rising from the waters, “her body erect above the waves of bitter love”.[2] This image of beauty, erected at the acme of the fascination of desire, he says, is a blank space that is surrounded by an intense cathexis. Lacan modifies Fenichel’s equation Girl=Phallus to show that while the image is invested with all the attractions, with all the drive impulses that circumscribe it, there where the phallus is, it is not. As such it is the pivot in the constitution of every object of desire. As he notes in “The Signification of the Phallus”, the problematic of the phallus is intrinsic to feminine sexuality, and it will lead to his conceptualisation of the not-all and the Other jouissance in Seminar XX, Encore.

Lacan’s question above appears to continue his discussion of beauty as barrier to the real, in the dazzling form of Antigone, in Seminar VII, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis. Not only does Antigone’s beauty fascinate us, “it holds the subject back from the unspeakable field of radical desire that is the field of absolute destruction”.[3] Beauty is a barrier that, in an analysis, the analyst’s know-how aims to breach. Lacan also gives to modesty (pudeur) the function of barrier to the real and he makes a number of references to modesty as that which veils while drawing attention to what is veiled. Not only does he say this in relation to the veiling of the phallus, but also modesty is most importantly a barrier to unconscious knowledge. In Seminar VII he says, “the omission of this barrier which prevents the direct experience of that which is to be found at the centre of sexual union, seems to me to be at the origin of all sorts of questions that have not been answered, including notably the matter of feminine sexuality”.[4]

He comments on the function of modesty in 1974, in Seminar XXI, “Les non- dupes errent” in relation to The Ethics. Having dismissed the utility of the Good, the True and the Beautiful – the “glorious bodies” that we see celebrated in art – he affirms that in analytic experience, the truth, in as far as it can be spoken, is that the body goes towards jouissance and that sex is specifically tied to the death of the body. Lacan ask if his Borromean knot will allow us to go beyond this roundabout of jouissance, body and death.[5]

The real that makes the writing of the sexual relation impossible means that three are required to make the two of love. That the non-relation is the limit to the symbolic, and hence what is signifiable, is evident in the analytic discourse where the relation between the analyst, as the support of the object a, and the analysand, the divided subject, is also marked as impossible. The object a, as cause of desire, is precisely what is not representable or specularisable in the subject. It is real, extimate and is thus the most hidden point of his being. It is this unsignifiable dimension, always traumatic, that Lacan has in mind when, in the second lesson Les non-dupes, he speaks of the “cold horror” of unconscious knowledge that analytic discourse does not shy away from. This he will refer to as troumatisme – the trauma of the hole [trou] – that is constitutive of the subject in the collision of the body with language.

Lacan makes an enigmatic comment in the lesson of March 12, 1974: “... the only virtue, if there is no sexual relation as I have stated, is modesty”.6 Given that virtue is a notion that Lacan considers antithetical to psychoanalysis in its connection to the Good,[7] is he being ironic? I don’t think so. There is an ambiguity to modesty as affect in that it draws attention to what is concealed, but it is also a limit that must be breached in analysis. It is in this context that I am posing a question about what the contemporary movement, #MeToo, might have to say to analysts in terms of its clinical consequences with regard to the advent of the real in the traumatic encounter of the subject, the feminine subject in particular, with sex as radical difference? Certainly, these beautiful women, whom we have known as images and who have been cast, by the media, as heroic and courageous, were initiates to the rites of Hollywood when they were so taken by surprise by one ithyphallic Silenus or another. They speak of fear, anger and powerlessness. But what fuels this rage? A psychoanalyst might point to the effect of ravage: their irremediable castration and the traumatic effect on the body of the jouissance that exposes the limit of the signifying power of the phallus. For there is no recourse in being a dazzling phallic girl, or container of the algamatic object when one is the object of the Other’s jouissance. The real happens. The hole that appeared then is now being covered by semblants: victim, avenger.

In French “attentat à la pudeur”, literally, an attack on modesty denotes both “indecent exposure” and “indecent assault”. In the Anglophone world, the daily publication, since last October, of salacious details of such incidents and the fall of one powerful man after another have had a transferential effect for a number of my analysands, both masculine and feminine, and with obsessional and hysterical modes of response. There has been a sort of deferred action by proxy where associations to past advents of the real have been produced through a personal reaction to an event in the present. Significantly, the predominant affect has been anxiety – not without an object, as Lacan says, but with a hole in signification – accompanied variously by guilt and shame, the push to expel and destroy the disturbing other, compulsions to confess or embarrassment about what has already been exposed about the analysand’s sexuality. Such affects have been efficacious in the analyses as indications of the symptom and the approach to the real. Even where inhibition has occurred due to the sudden perception of the analyst as judge, it has not been without benefit in the working through. However, as Lacan says in the lesson of March 12, speaking well (le bien dire) is enough “to shock, but it does not violate (viole) modesty”.

Unlike the parallel movement in France, “#balancetonporc” (squeal on your pig), the very name, #MeToo is an invitation to identify. In the horror expressed by these young women, there is a contemporary expression of the traumatic encounter with the real of sex that has had a pronounced social effect. At the same time, there is an attempt to cover this real with the impassioned narratives from all those who sign up. Does Freud’s third form of identification in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego offer us a perspective here? He speaks of symptom formation arising from identification that is not based on any object relation but rather by “mental infection” – Freud’s term – on the grounds of the possibility of desire or desire to put oneself in the same situation; identification through the symptom as a mark of coincidence between two egos.[8] For Lacan, Freud’s third form of identification makes evident the hysteric’s desire to sustain desire in that she “is captive to the point of imaginary identification because her fantasy implies her ensnarement in it.”[9] And this gives orientation to the analyst: the fantasy that supports desire tries to make the sexual relation exist and must be traversed.

Soon after his reference to modesty and there being no sexual relation in “Les non-dupes errent” Lacan says, “L’amour est passionnant” (love is thrilling) but only if the rules of the game are followed.[10] However, we don’t know the rules; we have to invent them, using the analytic discourse to do so. The real ex-sists because there is no discourse about jouissance – the body is an enjoying substance and enjoys well or not. From this very fact, jouissance requires the knot, the knotting with the symbolic and the imaginary. In analysis, the function of the barrier of modesty as indicator of what is hidden is to mark with an X the spot where the unconscious treasure lies: at the point where modesty is affronted and the real suddenly appears. Perhaps this is why Lacan plays on his title: “les non-pudes errent” (the “immodest” err): a joke, but with serious analytic intent.


1. En Más allá del principio de placer, Freud dice que el trauma implica la ruptura “de una barrera que en otras circumstancias es eficaz”. Standard Edition, XVIII, p. 29.
2. Lacan, J. Transference: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VIII. Trad. B. Fink. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 2015, p. 387 [Lección del 28 de junio de 1961] (Le Séminaire de Jacques Lacan, Livre VIII, Le transfert, 1960-1961. Paris, Seuil, 2001, pp. 453-4).
3. Lacan, J. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-1960. Trad. D. Potter. London, Routledge, p. 216 [Lección del 4 de mayo de 1960] (Le Séminaire de Jacques Lacan, Livre VII, L’éthique de la psychanalyse, 1959-1960. Paris, Seuil, p. 256).
4. Ibid., p. 298 [Lección del 22 de junio de 1960; Éditions du Seuil, p. 345].
5. Lacan, J. Les non-dupes errent, Lección del 12 de marzo de 1974. Texto no publicado.
6. Ibid. “… la seule vertu, s’il n’y a pas de rapport sexuel comme je l’énonce, c’est la pudeur.”
7. Lacan, J. The Ethics, op. cit., p. 293 [Lección del 2 de junio de 1960; Éditions du Seuil, p. 339].
8. Freud, S. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. SE XVIII, pp. 105-106.
9. Lacan, J. The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power. Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English. Trad. B. Fink. New York and London, Norton, 2006, p. 534. [Écrits, Paris, Seuil, 1966, p. 639].
10. Lacan, J. Les non-dupes errent. Lección del 12 de marzo de 1974.

The re-advent of the real
Colette Soler, Pre-text 7 for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018

Lacan referred to certain advents of the real that, due to the effects of science and technical powers, change our social reality, as much as do the cultural commentaries that accompany them.

However, in my opinion, that is not the object of our RV that marks twenty years of the Lacanian Field. Added to our title “advents of the real” is the psychoanalyst. Now in principle, the psychoanalyst only has one politics – that of psychoanalysis – for his object is the clinic of subjects under transference in the analytic discourse. That’s where we have to question what of the real happens there and that could be of interest at our moment in civilisation – if we know how to make ourselves heard.

These advents of the real have already been formulated in psychoanalysis by Freud and Lacan but with other words; it takes only for us to recognise them there to know what we will discuss together during this Rendezvous. These words are not so numerous: trauma is at the origin of every neurosis says Freud, castration without recourse Freud again affirms, and I have already referred to love life made from repetition, tuché and symptom, fixion.

All these terms concern the status of jouissance of the speaking being – that is what Lacan named the “Lacanian Field”. No subject can avoid experiencing it in what he calls his life, and the analysis makes each analysand irremediably aware of its importance.

All convey Freud’s saying, that is condensed in Lacan’s formulation: “there is no sexual relationship”.

All indicate a real that, according to the Lacanian hypothesis, pertains to the body of jouissance affected by language.

Now this is a real that has already happened [advenu] for each analysand who arrives and which means, according to Lacan, that this is not made for good fortune [bon heur] but rather male-diction. Indeed, what the analyst receives first is the tumultuous complaint that responds to this real that happened.

Our question bears, thus, on the analytic discourse itself.

Firstly on the particular clinical occurrences of this real that the analysis makes it possible to identify as much as on the responses that each analysand brings to it.

This follows on the transformations that the very analysis brings to it. From this real that has already happened due to the hole/trauma [trou-matisme], does not the analytic act assure its re-advent under transference? It is this that has been approached in a confused, thus inexact, way in the history of psychoanalysis with the idea of the treatment being a new edition of the conditions of the neurosis.

Thus, the question: if the neurotic clamour of subjects responded to the first traumatic advent of the real could one not hope that the second, that of the re-advent in the analysis which sheds light on the first, give the subject the opportunity to take courage, in other words to renounce his complaint in order to face up to the destiny that his unconscious makes for him?

If he reaches that point perhaps he will be able to try to transmit in the Pass something of what he himself encountered and learned, but which is also valuable for others. For such is the political significance of the Pass for Lacan: to testify to the real that happens [advient] to each speaking being. This real knows neither frontiers, nor cultures, it is the very object of the universal message of psychoanalysis, as much as it ex-sists.

C.S., December 18, 2017
Translated by Susan Schwartz

Politics of the real?
Patricia Muñoz, Pre-text 6 for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018

This is what is produced in any human conglomerate when the recruited beings situate themselves in that real on behalf of very different principles from those who permitted to constitute a class beforehand. The fact that this class, keeping the same name will be qualified by a very different type of individuals, is susceptible to transform entirely, not certain fundamental structures, but the nature of discourse[1]

I am trying to find a point of juncture between the theme of our X International Meeting “Advents of the real and the psychoanalyst” and the debate topic that the CRIF proposed regarding the actualization of the politics of the Lacanian Field at the mark of 20 years of the IF. A knotting between the politics of the institution , the politics of the cure and its incidence in social politics.

To that aim, I will take the two versions, oral and written, of The propositionthat Lacan makes to his Schooland which he later puts in relation with the events of May of 68; for I consider that we can find there a political position emanated from analytic experience.

Lacan takes the topology of the projective plane and he indicates us that it is in he horizon itself of psychoanalysis in extension where the interior circle is knotted, which psychoanalysis in intension traces as a gap. He centers that horizon on three vanishing points, each one belonging to one of the three registers: Symbolic, Imaginary and Real. He tells us that our experience is constituted in the collusion of those three registers in the heterotopia.

“It is about juxtaposing in a real place various spaces that normally would be or should be incompatible, thus engendering a space other determined by the way in which the collusion of the registers is produced, to which each of these facticities respond”[2]. I will go back to the third facticity, the third vanishing point called by Lacan “real facticity, too real,[3]that is expressed with the very saying term of “concentration camp”,[4]about which, he tells us, thinkers have vagabonded from “humanism to terror”.[5]He tells us that those concentration camps are the precursors of what will be developed as a consequence of the reorganization of the social groups by science and universalization. (*)

We see in these developments of Lacan a knotting that I consider is more evident in the oral version of The proposition; a knotting that in the developments to come equally has its center in the object a. Lacan tells us: “To designate the form of the zero is essential, the one that (it's the objective of our interior eight), placed in the center of our knowledge…if one knows not to say what logical structure supplements it “in the center”, anything can occupy it (and the discourses on goodness).”[6]It is about the gap to be noted, preserved and accepted, as nucleus of the real impossible. Interior eight that knots extension and intension.

It is important to note that, around that same time, Lacan will propose his notion of “Lacanian Field”, field of jouissances. Different from the field of the Freudian unconscious, this new field is related with the theoretical production of the discourses. With it he moves from the restricted field of the analytic cureto encompassing the collective, thus articulating the individual subject and the world in which it is inscribed, parting from what analytic experience teaches him. What can we say that would come from psychoanalytic experience?

Currently the flood of the real that Lacan[7] forecasted is evident. Advent of the real on which the analyst depends and must counteract. The capitalist discourse supported by science is a discourse that leaves subjects with their solitary jouissance and without possibility to establish a social link. Likewise, it affects the statue of subjects, for it utilizes them thus leaving them in the position of an object; furthermore, it rejects anything that is related to love to produce a return in the real under the form of loneliness, annoyance and violence.

In fact, we can also see that what Lacan called science fiction in The third, is no longer a fiction these days, it is among us. I believe that what he predicted then came to be, and that this did not conduced us to the “apathy of the universal good”, but rather to the conjunction of Kant with Sade. As Colette Soler tells us, “Sade’s will of jouissance –this Sadian will of a non sublimated jouissance– yields the truth of Kant…the world of the Kantian law produces the same: wanting to evict jouissance the same result is reached than pursuing it unconditionally”.[8] Without a doubt there is nowadays a push to jouissance.

How to understand Lacan’s affirmation that “the mission of the analyst is to counteract the real”[9]? Lacan warned us when he said that concentration camps were the precursors of what awaits us. We have seen the effects of capitalist discourse and science, which produce the complaint and dissatisfaction, the clamor, which are for psychoanalysis not only structural but indestructible. Analysis takes them as existing facts and that is its way of affronting the real; we know that its future depends on this.

On this note, when Lacan is accused of being a pessimist,[10] he responds: “Well, man has always known how to adjust to evil”[11], and continues saying: “The only conceivable real that we have access to is this one and one must give oneself a reason”[12]. He tells us that “…he is not among the alarmists nor the anguished ones”[13]. I believe that this is precisely what Lacan does in his theoretical reflections, conferences and papers, especially in this time I have chosen, from the proposition to The Third. In rigor, we know that psychoanalysis does not offer solutions to social problems; however, it has an incidence at the collective level via the mediation of the individual. “Artificial Lung”, is what Lacan[14] called it.

Although the epigraph, chosen for our pre-text, refers to analytic institutions it is applicable also to other discourses and to the individuals that live in their refuge. The effect of a psychoanalysis, although it is in the one by one, allows them to affront in a different way what does not work, the real impossible and produces effects in the discourse in which they live, given that the analytic discourse brings to light the non collectivizable real.

We are before an impossible, that real which must be ratified for the “clamor” does nothing other than confirming its impossibility. In the text The third, Lacan brings us the three categories, Symbolic, Imaginary and Real, and by way of the onomatopoeia he evokes its theoretic rack -trasegar-, going back always to the same traces, thus making “disc”, “discourse” and “said” [dit]. This comes back, it is each time the first.[15]Like Lacan said it in the interview in Rome to which I referred earlier, one has to find a reason, and I believe we can say it with Colette Soler: “obstinateness, perseverance, insistence?”.[16]

Traduction: Gabriela Zorzutti

[1] Lacan Jacques On the experience of the pass 1973. Ornicar? In Spanish #1 On psychoanalysis’ knowledge. Periodic publication of the Freudian Field. Pag. 31.
[2] Cruglak Clara “Notes of an underlining: On the Proposition of Oct. 9th”.
[3] Lacan Jacques. "Proposition of Oct. 9th of 1967". Ed. Paidós. Bs. As 2014 in Otros escritos. pág. 276.
[4] IBID.
[5] IBID. Nota (*) Michel Bousseyroux brings us very important references in relation to Lacan’s position before the University Discourse, at the time. Chapters 1 & 2. In his text Penser la psychanalyse avec Lacan. Ed Érès. 2016.
[6] IBID. Pág. 611.
[7] Lacan Jacques. "La Tercera". En Intervenciones y Textos 2. Ed. Manantial. Argentina 1991. Pág 87.
[8] Soler Colette Course 2005-2006 The Third of Jacques Lacan. Ed. Los monográficos de pliegues. España. Federación de Foros del Campo Lacaniano F-7. Pag 153.
[9] Jacques Lacan. "La Tercera". En Intervenciones y Textos 2. Ed. Manantial 1991. Argentina. Pag 87. [10] Interview made in Rome by the magazine Panorama, published on Dec. 21 of 1974.
[11] IBID.
[12] IBID
[13] IBID.
[14] Lacan J., « L’analyse c’est le poumon artificiel grâce à quoi on essaie d’assurer ce qu’il faut trouver de jouissance dans le parler pour que l’histoire continue », Déclaration a France Culture 1973, published in «Le Coq-Héron», 46-47, 1974, pp. 3-8 (,083).
[15] Soler Colette. Course 2005-2006 The Third of Jacques Lacan. Ed. Los monográficos de pliegues. España. Pags. 11-12.
[16] IBID. Pag. 11.

The advents of the real in the psychoanalytic clinic and in civilization
Silvia Migdalek, Pre-text 5 for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018

The conference entitled La troisième [The third] took place in Rome, in 1974, within the VII Congress of the Freudian School of Paris. In addition to this conference, Lacan spoke at the opening and the closure of the Congress. The Congress lasted four intense days, and some of the papers presented there were selected to be published in the Actes of the Freudian School of Paris (1).

For many of us the 1970s were years full of political events that marked us significantly. Just a few years before the start of that decade, the French May of 1968 infiltrated the delivery of Seminar XVII, when university students strongly interpellated Lacan, who not only did not avoid the incisive questions addressed by the ‘rebellious ones’ to him, but also answered them resolutely: ‘... I would tell you that, always, the revolutionary aspiration has only a single possible outcome—of ending up as the discourse of the master. This is what experience has proved. What you aspire to as revolutionaries is a master. You will get one’. (2)

In my country, Argentina, during those years – to be precise, the 24th March of 1976 – the darkest period of our history started: a military coup that established a dictatorship that implemented a sinister plan of disappearance of people, kidpnappings, torture, the illegal appropriation of children who were then given to friends of the régime and some times to individuals who ‘innocently’ chose to adopt a position of denial, as they did not want to know anything about the horror... of the advent of a real that nested in social, collective life for many years and which even today maintains the features of something that does not cease in its effects.

Simultaneously, during the same years, in Argentina Lacanian psychoanalysis expanded with great vigour, which fortunately continues to have. With many colleagues we share the thought that the study groups on Freud and Lacan that proliferated at that time became the almost only shelter where it was possible to discuss matters about which one could not talk in any other place. As it is natural in a dictatorial state, the prevailing climate was one of fear and generalized suspicion. Many had to eventually find refuge through political asylum or forced exile, after spending long years underground.

I regard these brief temporal references as important in our approach of the common theme for our work in Barcelona in 2018, ‘The advents of the real and the psychoanalyst’. The relation between an advent and time is evident: it always induces a rupturing effect in the homeostatic temporality of a series – one could say like a sort of temporal funnel that in a deferred action would emerge with ‘an undesired fidelity’, both in the transference and outside it, that is to say, in the life of a subject. After some terrorist actions dominated by terror and the surprise factor it has been observed that a few subjects who were close to the event of an explosion, and who miraculously escaped alive, then fell into a state akin to temporo-spatial disorientation and roamed around, lost, for several hours, without being able to refer to the usual coordinates of their reality.

The advent is always of the order of emergency (emergencia). In Spanish this word has two meanings. On the one hand, it refers to something that has a relation with the verb emerger (to emerge); for example, ‘to rise from the water’, and also ‘to sprout’. On the other hand, the noun emergencia refers to an accident or event that happens unexpectedly; for example, un estado de emergencia (‘a state of emergency’). As Colette Soler has indicated, an advent may be something that is expected or not predicted, new, unexpected.

In relation to the circumstances that surrounded La troisième – a text that has been regarded as an introduction to the seminar of 1974-75, RSI – Lacan held a press conference that concerns directly one of the axes of our theme, the advents of the real. He emphasized at the time the dimension of the real of science and its consequences for subjectivity. His answers were sharp, and at certain moments they induced an awakening affect, to which today we could adscribe a striking anticipatory value. To the series of the Freudian impossibles – educating, governing and analyzing – he added the position of the scientist: ‘Science has a probability. Its position is also totally impossible, but it so happens that it does not have the slightest idea of it.’ (3) The only ‘little emergence’ that we have is that sometimes scientists become anxious, and this provides us with a clue. Psychoanalysis appeared in correlation with a certain advance of the discourse of science, and referring to Civilization and its Discontents, Lacan affirmed that psychoanalysis is a symptom that is part of the discontents, and then added: ‘The symptom is what is the most real among the things that exist’ (4).

Lacan also said that the psychoanalyst was al a time of mutation, since ‘for a brief moment we were not able of giving an account of what the intrusion of the real was. The analyst remains there. He is there as a symptom, and he can only last in his capacity as a symptom. But you will see that they will cure humankind of psychoanalysis – by insisting on drowning it in sense...’ (5).

Psychoanalysis, as from the event Freud-in-Culture since the discovery of the unconscious, offers us a new mode of treatment of the real: Freud and his saying [decir], which injdicates that ‘that must come to be’.

I propose a scansion of the title of our X Rendezvous and consider, on the one hand, the syntagm ‘advents of the real’, in the plural, as pointed out in the pretexts that have already been published; and on the other hand, the psychoanalyst, who finds himself involved with such advents in his clinical practice as well as in what is transmitted in the discourses of culture and its discontents.

Let us list then – not exhaustively, and merely as indications – some of the modes of advent of the real that our clinical practice fatally convokes: the marks of the fixation of traumatic jouissance in its irreducibility; the viscosity and inertia of the libido in the symptom; anxiety; the irruption of repetition in its dimension of Tuché; the questioning and positioning as cause [la puesta en causa] of the object a in the place of the agent of the analytic discourse, making the veils of identifications fall, to which paradoxically transference itself had provided a veil in its moment of installation as the subject supposed to know; and finally S1 in the place of production, to which by way of the analyst’s desire, as a desire to obtain absolute difference, confronted with the primordial signifier ‘the subject is, for the first time, in a position to subject himself to it.’ (6) As Lacan suggests in Seminar XI, analysis requires a certain courage, as it leads, like no other praxis, to the bone of the real. Psychoanalysis depends on the real: the real that emerges in an analysis, as well as the real that is the effect of science and technology in civilization. It falls on us, practitioners of psychoanalysis, to sustain the analyst’s discourse in this era of capitalism whose real is such that does not promote social bonds. Our politics/policy [política] must give an answer to it without ignoring its consequences, thus continuing the wager for the unprecedented social bond that Freud invented, the analyst-analysand bond that induced the advent of something that does not follow any model of the usual relations we maintain with our fellow human beings. Perhaps it was also along this path that Lacan aspired to psychoanalysis having something new to say about love, as he postulated the advent of a new love that would not disavow the impossibility of the writing of the sexual proportional relation.

Let us remark that, in the same way as in 1974 Lacan evoked the twentieth anniversary of his ‘first’ – the Rome conference of 1953 – our Rendezvous at Barcelona will mark the twenty years of the creation of the International of the Forums of the Lacanian Field, that is to say, of the highlighting of the clinic of jouissance and the real that traverses it. The foundation of the Forums had its origins in the questioning of the improper use of the One, and consequently of a policy inclined towards a single mode of thinking in the analytic institution. These signifiers still represent us. We shall have the opportunity of remembering it, but we shall also devote half a day to a debate on the politics/policy of the Lacanian Field today: the effects it has had; its results and this – which is not of less importance – paying attention to the particularities it has assumed in the different zones of our international ensemble. The intense political, social and ideological crises that prevail today in our world of global capitalism may be read – in part – with the powerful conceptual tools of psychoanalysis. Freud and Lacan devoted themselves significantly to the relation between psychoanalysis and politics. For us, analysts of the Lacanian field, the question concerns the politics of jouissance in its different knottings. In its entropic nature, jouissance constitutes a kind of political economy and the segregation that is intrinsic to the structure of the parlêtre – jouissance segregates and separates. This is not the same as racism or discrimination. Lacan said that the unconscious is politics. This means that in his consulting room the analyst works with it and with the object a as semblant. Outside his consulting room he may adopt any ideologico- political position, even a more or less extreme one, under the condition that it does not interfere with his listening. Today a colleague told me that an analyst had said that she would not take any patient who was a gorilla (a slang term that nowadays is employed to designate someone very much to the right). I think that our politics concerning the treatment of the real of segregation in the analytic institution must be subordinated to the politics of being separate while together, ill assorted disperse individuals.

The real of science and segregation

In quite a few places Lacan gives a warning about what could emerge from the real. In the ‘Proposition’ of October 1967, addressed to the analysts of the School, he refers to this matter and warns about the real of science. Fifty years have passed recently since the publication of this founding text of our principles, and we continue to be struck by the anticipatory power earlier mentioned. I quote: [...] The real of science [...] destitutes the subject very differently in our epoch, when alone its most eminent supporters, an Oppenheimer, are infatuated by it. (7)

Today we have the neurosciences, which in their more radicalized versions discard the dimension of the subject completely and represent a powerful ally of the ‘bullish’ capitalist market of the pharmaceutical companies. Lacan also comments on this in the ‘Proposition’, where we read: ‘Our future as common markets will be balanced by an increasingly hardline extension of the process of segregation’ (8). In relation to the effects of universalization of science, Lacan makes out certain re-orderings of social groupings as a consequence.

Finally, Lacan refers to three ‘points of exist’ as a kind of projection of our horizon. This concerns what as psychoanalysts we must keep in perspective, that about which we cannot not get involved, making psychoanalysis in extension play a part, but linked to the gap of psychoanalysis in intension.

Lacan then refers, as a third incidence, that which comes from the real, and relates it to the concentration camps and segregation. He summons the psychoanalysts to take an interest in it without deviating the gaze. The real in question concerns the segregation within the analytic group and within civilization. As regards segregation, it is interesting to note that Lacan recognizes in fraternity one of its purest forms: if it is necessary to be reminded that we are brothers and sisters it is because at some point we are not so... We must keep in our horizon the real of science and technology in our era, so as to get to know its new forms and to be able to operate on the new reals in their subjective impact through the new jouissances on offer and the proliferation of gadgets to be consumed. In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud expressed the view that the uncritical submission to the advances of science and technology does not automatically imply the advancement in humankind’s wellbeing.

The aggiornamento and dialogue with the existing discourses is a task for psychoanalysis, as it is our duty not to ignore them. Science advances inexorably, although its destination is not exactly known. As Lacan points out, its effects are generally regarded as providential; that is to say: one adopts the premise that it moves in the direction of providing wellbeing to the human being. It is not a question of opposing it and claiming the benefits that could be derived from a return to the Stone Age. It is rather a question of reflecting about its effects, as Freud and Lacan did, since they transform the subjectivity of our times, and the subject must assume in their regard an ethical position, and consequently they entail an intimate judgement, a decision and an election. It is at that point that the analyst’s discourse may have an impact.

Is the real that science produces the same as the real of psychoanalysis? This could be debated. At any rate, we may agree that jouissance is the real of psychoanalysis, on which we operate and intervene, producing mutations, transformations, mutating beings, inhabitants in a world that has the privilege or the misfortune of a certain condition of extraterritoriality...

Translated by Leonardo Rodríguez
(1) J. Lacan (1975). Lettres de l’École freudienne de Paris, 16:177-203.
(2) J. Lacan (2007). The Seminar, Book XVII, The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. New York & London, Norton, p. 207.
(3) J. Lacan (1975). Conférence de presse, 29 octobre 1974. Lettres de l’École freudienne de Paris, 16:2-26.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) J. Lacan (1977) The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. London, Tavistock, p. 276.
(7) J. Lacan (1995). Proposition of 9 October 1967 on the Psychoanalyst of the School. Analysis 6, p. 8.
(8) Ibid, p. 12.

Advents of the real
Diego Mautino, Pre-text 3 for Internationals Meeting IF-SPFLF in Barcelona, September 2018
Rome, september 8th 2017.

«Anxiety is, after all, the symptom-type of all advent of the real.»[1]

In the epigraph above, “all” is to be understood in the sense of “each” advent of the real, advents then, in the plural. The real, therefore, is not universal, is not one, each one of its elements is identical to itself, but without the possibility of expressing them as “all”– there are only sets to be determined in each case. This expression raises various issues and I commence with two: which are those advents of the real in today’s discourses? And, with what symptoms do subjects respond? One of the first definitions of the real written by Lacan in 1954 is: “what subsists outside symbolisation”,[2] that is to say, outside language. What is it that subsists outside language? Following an indication from Colette Soler[3] we could say it is matter, in its two manifestations: the inanimate and the living, each one constituting the object of two great sciences, physics and biology.

There is not the least hope of reaching the real by representation – since it remains outside the symbolic and the imaginary-, eppur [and yet it moves (Galileo)]…there are ways to gain access to it. Which are the access lines? Freud gives testimony of one: confronted by the discovery of the first jouissance outside language, trauma, he passes the event to the signifier and that constitutes a first element of the Ucs-language to which others are added, and this is a condition for the invention of the unconscious. Colette Soler indicates that the use of the word advent to refer to the access to the real by means of the trauma is debatable and she would rather say that the event of a real does not constitute an advent until the signifier is added to it. Then the advent itself would be the Freudian invention of the Ucs and the advent of psychoanalysis as a new discourse.[4] The first example that proves “the efficacy of the subject”,[5] that is not only the effect of language or discourse – negativities the structure – but also the fertility of invention, of the One-saying.

Lacan uses the expression “advents of the real”[6] in relation to the effects of science; he writes that it is necessary to take the real into account because “the facts of the unconscious”[7] become located in the body and indicate that “the analyst lodges another knowledge, in another place”,[8] while the facts of science take the matter as “knowledge in the real […] and it is the scientist who has to lodge it there”.[9] What real is he talking about? He says it right away: “Namely, that which is the mainspring of our experience of knowledge: There is knowledge in the real, although it is not the analyst but the scientist, who lodges it there. The analyst lodges another knowledge, in another place, one that has to take into account the knowledge in the real.”[10] The indication that it is the scientist who has to lodge it, evokes the place… and the place refers to the four places in which the discourses are constituted by the permutation of the four terms implicated by the structure of language. The affirmation: “There is knowledge in the real”, makes it necessary to interrogate that knowledge: what is it that characterises it? It is necessary to say something more, and he continues: “the analyst lodges another knowledge” – not the same then. Lacan talks frequently about the knowledge of science, as a knowledge that rests entirely on the One. “The one and the number, with the idea that the formulas of science are inscribed in the real […] from which it can be deduced that by means of mathematical formulas, techniques may be constructed, which enable the control of the physical real. At any rate, the knowledge of science is a knowledge that forecloses the subject.”[11]

Number, the most real of language?

Lacan talks about advents of the real – in Television and in “The Third” – starting from considerations of the effects of science: on one side the moon landing and on the other, the production of new forms of surplus jouissance. With respect to the first, the real that subsists outside symbolisation, matter reveals itself attached to number, as if nature was written in mathematical language. He says: “This is expressed through the fact that scientific discourse was able to bring about the moon landing, where thought becomes witness to an irruption of the real. […] political discourse – this is to be noted – once it enters the picture, you have the advent of the real, that is, the moon landing […].[12] This entails effects of jouissance for the power of domination and expansion, and introduces considerations about jouissance, which remains “one”; it doesn't form a couple. Lacan returns to this One introducing the letter – identical to itself – necessary because “only from there we have access to the real”.[13] With respect to the use of the term advent for the access to the real through the coalescence of number and matter, maybe we could apply to science what we said for psychoanalysis, that is, to consider it an “advent of the real”, and it will be necessary to also add the coalescence of number and the enjoying substance [substancia gozante]. Then, the advent itself would be: the coalescence number-matter plus the coalescence of the number and the enjoying substance.

The symptom and the real

From this division between two reals, from the perspective of two different forms of access, and considering that science is not without effects in the field of jouissance, our International Rendezvous will allow us to open questions such us: with what symptoms do the subjects respond? The knowledge of science is in the service of power – political and economic – and, although far from achieving its goal, it finances the production of new forms of surplus jouissance. Lacan makes the diagnosis that it is far from achieving its goal, for the impossible suture of the speaking-body, which places itself crosswise[14] to the program of “the apathy of the universal good”[15] of science – at the same time makes room for the analytic discourse. Science makes us dream and Lacan evokes science fiction in order to show its other side, meaning that when the biologists themselves are taken by anxiety when confronted by an achievement like that of producing bacteria so strong that they could “sweep away all sexed experience, sweep away the parlêtre.”[16] Paradoxically, biology would achieve its goal on the condition of destroying life itself. The scientific advances in times of war give evidence of a problematic route for human fecundity that, when faced with such atrocities, does not give any assurance that science is synonymous with progress. With respect to impossibility – in the face of the power of a certain real, to be specified in each case – Lacan predicts the failure of science, while, he advances by considering the achievements and failures of psychoanalysis, emerging as the symptom, which means as a resource to treat what is not working in the life of… each one.

“The anxiety, symptom” in the epigraph could then be understood as the sign of the “advent of the real”. The moon landing, the missiles or the gadgets, find the limit of what can be calculated when it is a matter of sex; there is no equation for the couple, “[…] in the field of desire […] there is no object with more value than any other”,[17] nor of the opaque jouissance proper to the symptom of each one. The symptom of jouissance – for a parlêtre that is already in language – comes from the real,[18] in a double sense: 1) from the real of the non-relation caused by taking speech over the body and 2) from the real of the Ones of opaque jouissance of the symptom, which supply it.

The One and the field of bipartition

The advent of the real with respect to the symptom defined as “the way in which each one enjoys its unconscious”[19] – is a One of jouissance or a One enjoyed [Uno gozado], not any one, which sense doesn't count. From a first advent of the real Freud launched psychoanalysis, in itself an advent, a new knowing-how-to-do with the irruption of jouissance. What does psychoanalysis do when confronted by the real of the symptom? It appeals to sense, that means to the signifier; but each signifier, besides having sense, is also a one of pure difference, cipher 1 [cifra 1], outside sense. The two dimensions: sense and the cipher, are present in each signifier, linked and heterogeneous. Then, when we talk about the enjoyed signifier [significante gozado] through this coalescence, which jouissance are we talking about? Two jouissances are linked: that of sense – because words have a sense – and that of the One, of the cipher that each signifier is, which Lacan calls phallic jouissance. Each signifier doesn't have the same sense, but they have the same real as a one of pure difference. Then the enjoyed signifier implies a double jouissance, a bipartition of jouissance between enjoyed sense and jouissance of the cipher that supports the signifiers, outside sense, real. Lacan locates the two distinct jouissances in the flattening of the Borromean knot, but they are linked in each signifier, because each one carries, at the same, time jouis-sense and the jouissance of the One outside sense. From this perspective, the jouissance of the phallic One is the vehicle of the jouissance of sense.

The advent would suppose then the conjunction of a real outside the symbolic with language and its Ones. For psychoanalysis, the real outside the symbolic that concerns it, is the part of life affected by the jouissance of the living being as sexed. At the level of the species spoken of as superior, the enjoyed substance is bipartite, distributed according to the sex ratio, which is a datum of life linked to reproduction by way of sex and leads to the impossibility of establishing the relation of “them two”;[20] when the One is articulated there are not two. “There is something of the One” [“Hay del Uno”] insists Lacan and thus, besides evoking the “there is no” of the sexual relation, he notes that the question of existence turns around the One. Colette Soler[21] indicated the One-saying [Un-decir] as the One “superior to the subject”, that constitutes each subject as a set, each one unique in its genre. One-saying of the One that, only in an analysis, has the chance to demonstrate that “there is no” jouissance of the two. What could be expected from an analysis? The satisfaction that marks the end with a change of taste? A singular satisfaction, a change of weight on the scale of satisfactions between the truth and the real? Doesn’t the perspective of an advent of the real from an analysis, introduce the necessity of the procedure of the Pass and the School that, by this means, brings together what Lacan calls “scattered, ill-assorted individuals”?

Translated by Ofelia Brozky
[1] Lacan J., “The Third” constitutes the text of Lacan’s exposition in Rome on November 1,1974, on the occasion of the VII Congress of the Ecole Freudienne de Paris (29/X-3/XI.1974). A first version was published in the Lettres de l’Ecole Freudienne, 1975, nbr 16, pp.177-203.
[2] Lacan J., “A Spoken Commentary on Freud’s ‘Verneinung’ by Jean Hyppolite, in Écrits: The first complete edition in English, translated by Bruce Fink. W.W Norton & Company, NY. London, 2006, p. 324
[3] Cf. Soler C., Avènements du réel, de l’angoisse au symptôme, Cours CCP-Paris 2015-2016, Éditions du Champ lacanien, Collection Études, Paris 2016, p. 169.
[4] Cf. Soler C., Avènements du réel…, cit., p. 170, §2.
[5] Lacan, J.,“Let us … recognize the subject’s efficacy in the gnomon he erects, a gnomon that constantly indicates truth’s site to him”. In Science and Truth, in Écrits, p. 745.
[6] Lacan, J., Television, cit., p. 123. Otros escritos, cit., p. 562.
[7] Lacan J., Psicoanálisis Radiofonía & Televisión, Traducción y notas de Oscar Masotta, Editorial Anagrama, Barcelona, 1977, p. 123. Otros escritos, Paidós, Buenos Aires, 2014, p. 563. Fuentes: Radiophonie, en Scilicet 2/3, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1970, Télévision, Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1974.
[8] Lacan J., “ Note Italienne” [Italian note], in Autres Ecrits, p. 308.
[9] Ibidem.
[10] Ibidem.
[11] Soler C., Commentaire de la «Note Italienne» de Jacques Lacan, Edizioni Praxis del Campo lacaniano, Roma, 2014, p. 40.
[12] Lacan J., Television, p. 36. Translation modified.
[13] Lacan J., «La tercera», cit., p. 106.
[14] Lacan J., «[…] lo real es lo que anda mal, lo que se pone en cruz para estorbar ese andar», en «La Tercera», cit., p. 81.
[15] Lacan J., «La Tercera», cit., p. 88.
[16] Ibidem, p. 87.
[17] Lacan J., «[…] dans le champ du désir […] il n’y a pas d’objet qui ait plus de prix qu’un autre» [[…] in the field of desire […] no object has a greater price than another »], Le séminaire, Livre VIII, Le transfert [1960-1961], Éditions du Seuil, 1991, 2001, p. 464.
[18] Lacan, J., «La Tercera»: «Llamo síntoma a lo que viene de lo real», en Lacan J., p. 84. [“I call symptom that which comes from the real”].
[19] Lacan, J., “The symptom cannot be defined otherwise than by the way in which each one enjoys the unconscious so far as the unconscious determines it”. Seminar XXII, R.S.I., Lecture of 18 February 1975, trans. Cormac Gallagher.
[20] Homophony between deux (two) and d’eux (of them).
[21] Soler C., «L’UN tout seul et ses liens», Cita internacional de la IF, Medellín, Colombia, 15 julio 2016, Heteridad n° 17, en preparación. [This paper, “The One all alone and its links” will appear in the English versión of Heterity, no. 17.

Pre-text 3
Rithée Cevasco, Pre-text 3 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 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.

Trauma: event and advent of the real
Sandra Leticia Berta, Pre-text 2 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.

Advent of the real
Colette Soler, Pre-text 1 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

VIth E Scholl - The School and the Discourses. What joy do we find in our work?

The School and the Discourses
Initial development of this theme
Marc Strauss (September 9th 2017)

“... For you, there is – you have to want it – another way of thinking about your revolt of the privileged: mine, hrough example. I only regret that so few people who interest me are interested in what interests me.” J. Lacan, Ornicar 49, p. 7.

Lacan’s founding of his School of psychoanalysis is inscribed in a history of discourses. It is the latter that gives it its place in the social space, and assigns its responsibilities to it.

Certainly Lacan’s founding of his School is anterior to his writing the mathemes of the discourses. But it is not anterior to his effort to realise the analytic experience in a discourse that was unprecedented until the time of Freud. His appearance responded to a reality, also unprecedented, in which a form of symptom became untreatable. Indeed, the symptom does not date from Freud; it is correlative to the very existence of speech. It must be recognised as such, in order to be able to retrospectively clarify its historical avatars.

Thus, the discourses of the master and the hysteric are united in their confrontation. The signifying order imposes this division, which responds to an irremediable cut between the representation and the represented. As a result, the discourse of the master, which rests on consenting to the One that is excepted, never goes without the shadowy part of the subject with which the hysteric attires herself in order to complete it.

At one time, these two were enough to organise the world, but in the face of the decomposition of the empire of the One, in order for the master to continue to speak in the name of all of us, he had to take refuge behind knowledge.

The university discourse is thus a “regression” in relation to the effort for truth that hysteria calls for. The subject is found there, cut off from the truth, in a suffering that is inarticulable and therefore, inaudible. Delegitimised, truth becomes more convincing to the extent that science, having become countable calculation, outdid its possible interlocutors, the priest and the doctor.

It is at this point that a new interlocutor is born for the subject – the psychoanalyst, of course. Suffering like the hysteric from the new master’s forms of violence, the psychoanalyst knew how to hear the subject, and to restore his reason.

Freud’s project was to make civilisation’s new forms of violence more bearable, even to attenuate them. We could say that he succeeded in changing the way his epoch looked at human kind, its motivations and realisations, and in so doing producing attacks, perhaps excessive. Today, the discourse of the triumphant market increasingly undoes traditional links.

In reaction, Lacan never, in the name of Freud, promoted an ideal of the collective. On the contrary, he insisted that the link be one by one, but even so, he founded a School. A collective, thus, that he wanted to be unprecedented due to the novelty of the analytic discourse, integrating its experiences into its practices and procedures, including the selection and the guarantee of analysts.

This attention to coherence was aimed not only at its internal functioning, but also at the function that it assigned to psychoanalysis: an operation against the malaise in civilisation, for which the School would be the base. But whether it is to defend and preserve its field, or conquer a larger one, whether the School is limited to the perpetuation of the experience or whether it wants to influence the choices of the city, its recourse must be to making itself heard.

Now, we know about the contemporary malaise: “thirst from the lack of enjoyment”. Indeed, the originality of the capitalist discourse, hailed by Lacan as a performance, is to propose its own treatment in a course without end. Whether they know it or not, the subjects that it determines are in its grasp. How then can the analytic discourse point to a different solution for them? Why would anyone what to give up the thirst from the lack of enjoyment and its intoxicating torments, and in the name of what?

It is clear that today we are in a particular moment for psychoanalysis, and that we lack the models to respond to it. After having created an almost beatific credulity with the opinion makers, psychoanalysis is once again the object of a strong suspicion, if not a rejection, for charlatanism. Now neuro-behaviouralism with its methods based on the chemistry of molecular interactions and statistics disputes psychoanalysis’s place in the market.

The call for psychoanalytic intervention certainly suffers from this devaluation.

Some questions arise from this:

— What, in our function as a School, pertains to each of the discourses?
— How do we control our processes of selection and guarantee in the School?
— How do we situate them in the order of discourses, it being understood that none go without the other three with which it closes the orderly round of desire?
— How does the fifth discourse, that of capitalism, intervene there when it undoes this round in order to impose itself alone?
— How can psychoanalysis offer to treat the impasses of the subject if contemporary discourse is sustained by not allowing it in?
— Between monastic retreat, with its threat of fragmentation, and imposture destined for collective retaliation, what strategies can be adopted to keep the reconquest of the Freudian and Lacanian fields alive?

Translated by Susan Schwartz

Preliminar 2

Marcelo Mazzuca

“What joy do we find in that which constitutes our work?”


In “the era of haste”, as once called by Ketama[1], where the so called “psychoanalytic” groups proliferate and the self-denominated “analysts" advance with great speed, it’s good to remember that Lacan called “School” his initiative. Our next meeting of the Lacanian Field constitutes a good occasion to revise the meaning of this collective wager: of its dispositifs, its functioning, and its results. Without that “control” demanded by the experience we run the risk of advancing with “so much haste to nowhere”[2].

The term “school” evokes the schools of antiquity, dating of the times before universities and before sciences, where the disciples gathered around a “Maestro” and they were formed in the orbit of their discourse. An attempt at capturing the savoir in the frame of a teaching, in a transmission that passes from one hand to the next. In this sense, the Lacanian School is the heir of another initiative, “The seminar of Jacques Lacan”, a quite curious teaching dispositif. Perhaps his most legitimate “invention”. There he sustained a discourse that aimed at prolonging Freud’s, and in which he was “maestro”, “teacher” and even “analyzand”. And at times, why not admit it, “hysteric”, “master” and also “universitarian”. In any case, it was there that he learned that “the effect that propagates is not the one of communication of speech, but rather the displacement of discourse”[3].

In short, a way to contribute to the formation of the analysts from a discourse that is congruent with the practice of psychoanalysis. In my opinion, a School of Psychoanalysis can only have sense in that same direction: putting analyst and savoir “to the test”. In this sense, it seems a bit like “musical chairs”[4], where the participants circulate in a circle and rush their pace to find the opportunity to sit. Only that in the School the prize is no trophy, and the test is not a stepladder (escabel). The more the game of the School advances and less chairs are left in the circle, the more the participant is left in question. “The School of the chairs”, or “the game of the putting it to the test”, is the way that Lacan found to give “seat” to a discourse that preceded him and in which he himself was committed first as a practitioner and later as teacher.

But careful! In the School it is not about the analytic discourse alone, as sometimes we may hear. If there is something in this form of link of two that can have the chance to find, in the dispostifs and in the dispositions, some sort of prolongation, this cannot happen without the participation of the other discourses.


Then, it is about “the discourses”. With four feet each and four total, although they cannot form any totality. We are interested in their permanent round and their difference with the discourses that foreclose: science forecloses its “subject” and capitalism forecloses “the matters of love”. An alternative to come closer to its functioning is to pay attention to their formulae (“rule of first approximation”, Lacan used to say) and to what happens with savoir.

The originality in this sense, clinically speaking, is that they outline savoir as a potent means of jouissance: “environment”, as the obsessive thinking attests; and “means of transport”, as the hysteric body demonstrates. But fundamentally it is a “means of production”, and as analysts we know that its most elaborate product is the symptom itself. If they are used as a clinical tool, these “appliances of jouissance”, the discourses, allow to distinguish four different statues of savoir, dependent on the place where their capture is produced: imposed savoir (in the University discourse), exposed savoir (in the Master’s discourse), supposed savoir (in the Hysteric’s discourse) and savoir in text (in the discourse of the Analyst). Although, truly, they’re four statutes “plus one”, given that the know how to do with the symptom in which the end of analysis consists for Lacan, is not equivalent to any of the other four. In a certain way, it is the one we access when jilting the set of discourses, and the one that we attempt to recognize in the experience of the authentication of the desire of the analyst in which the Pass consists.

That is the way opened by Lacan once his School was established: the one of the field of desire in its relation with the field of jouissance, the one he wanted denominated “Lacanian field”, and from which we try to open the question: “what joy do we find in that which constitutes our work?”[5].

“Analytic experience puts savoir at the center, to the test”[6], says Lacan when he begins to explore that field in 69´. It is an expression that evokes the one he had used in his Ecrits: “put the analyst to the test”[7]. Where the analyst was, before he founded his School, knowledge came to be placed. That means that it is not only about placing it as a “capital” element, but rather to make it go round, to attempt to displace it to the locus of truth to interrogate it, so that it will give its reasons and demonstrate its limitations. So, if we could personify it, seat it in the test in which the School consists, and make it so that it itself, the Savoir, be our Meno, we could interrogate it in such a way so that it will reveal some its tricks:

Do you, Savoir, know yourself? Do you live alone or do you have a partner? What do you do? Do you work? For who and for wat? Do you feel complete? Do you think you can become complete? What relationship do you have with connaissance? Do you know it? And with truth? Don’t lie! Are you subject or object? Do you have a mother, father, siblings perhaps? What can you tell us about your ancestors? Has anyone ever desired you? Finally, the most important and hot question: what relationship do you, Savoir, have with jouissance and with the real? Please confess!! or admit your incompetence.

1. Grupo de música de flamenco-pop español.
2. Letra y música de “Paren el mundo” de Ketama:
3. Lacan, J (1972) “Radiofonía””, en Otros Escritos, Paidós, Buenos Aires, 2012, p. 429.
4. Game in whose point of departure and further development there is always one less chair than the amount of players. In essence, consists in circulating around the chairs until the music is interrupted and the players rush to find a place to seat. The winner is the one that finds a seat when there are two players left and only one chair.
5. Lacan, J (1958) “Alocución sobre las psicosis del niño”, en Otros Escritos, Paidós, Buenos Aires, 2012, p. 389.
6. Lacan, J (1969-70) El Seminario. Libro 17: El reverso del psicoanálisis, Paidós, Buenos Aires, 2002, pp. 31.
7. Lacan, J (1958) La dirección de la cura y los principios de su poder, Siglo Veintiuno, Buenos Aires, 1993, p. 567.

Note to joy

Fréderic Peillon [1]

She wanted compliments, comments full of praise about their gallop earlier, and to hear him say that this was so et cetera, all the while using the irritating “joy”, more noble and less technical than the other word.[2]
Albert Cohen

Lacan’s question, given as subtitle for our next Encounter of the School – “What joy do we find in that which makes our work”,[3] – is not without equivocation, and that is not without consequences.

First, the equivocation. In this immense “Treatise on the Non-relation” that Belle du seigneur constitutes – a contemporary treatise of Lacan’s formula – we have just read above how it irritates Solal. To state the fact [le fait], lo fag in Occitan[4], he thinks he can remove it with his bestiary [bestiaire].[5] Ariane does not choose: “In pleasure, she tries hard to squint, making terrible grimaces in joy so as not to be found beautiful until the antics [singeries] were over”.[6] Often “glowing with forbidden joy [mauvaise joie]”[7] in front of Deume, she already knows something of this impurity into which Solal aspires to initiate her.

Even if Solal inverts the assag[8] to prove the contrary, Cohen borrows this theme of the joy of love [joy de l’amor] [9] and its ambiguity from the literature of courtly love, a literature that Lacan, in his seminar The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, considers to have invented sublimation.

In this respect, if joy is the state where it is impossible to decide whether there is a celebration of a refinding or a commemoration of a loss, jouissance, which over- marks the object taking the place of the Thing from the positive regulations of its usage, inherits this ambiguity.

Now, for one of the possible consequences. It touches on the matter of discourses. Indeed, it seems to me that the analytic discourse, and its “determinative”[10] void, is necessary in order to be able to look at our joy in the face, which is not then to cede to the spherophily of hoping that the “round”[11] of discourses make exist a consistent universe that does not, but only in order to allow the analyst to jump more freely from one discourse to another.

Besides, can his action, having finally renounced any representation of the end, still be called /work/?

Translated by Susan Schwartz
1. Doctor of medicine and of clinical human sciences. Psychiatrist in hospitals, practitioner at St Anne hospital, 17, rue Broussais, 75674, Institut National de Jeunes Sourds de Paris, 254, rue Saint-Jacques, 75005 Paris, Érasme public health Establishment, 143, avenue Armand Guillebaud, 92161 Antony cedex ; psychoanalyst, 14bis, boulevard Morland Paris, 01 42 84 32 13, ; Director of Research at the University of Diderot, Paris (Centre of Research in Psychoanalysis, Medecine and Society); teacher in the Clinical College of Psychoanalysis, Paris; Analyst Member of the School of Psychoanalysis of the Forums of the Lacanian Field.
2. Translator’s note: Albert Cohen’s Belle du seigneur was first published in 1968, then republished in 1998 by Gallimard. It has been translated into English under the title Her Lover. Page numbers are to the French text. Translation of the quotation is by this translator.
3. LACAN, Jacques, Autres écrits, Seuil, Paris, p. 369.
4. Translator’s note: “lo fag” in Occitan means the sexual act. See
5. Translator’s note: the author alludes to the mediaeval “bestiary” which are moralising fables employing real or mythical animals.
6. Belle du seigneur, p. 616.
7. Ibid. p. 324.
8. Translator’s note: in Occitan, “assag” denotes, amongst other meanings, a test of love.
9. Translator’s note: in Occitan these words suggest sexual satisfaction.
10. LACAN, Jacques (1959-1960). Le séminaire, Livre VII, L’Éthique de la psychanalyse. Transcription Paris, Seuil, 1986, p.155. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis 1959-60. Ed. J-A Miller, trans. D. Potter, London, Routledge, 1992, p. 130.
11. LACAN, Jacques (1972). L’Étourdit, in Autres écrits. Paris, Seuil, 2001, p. 453.

From gaya science to joy (Preliminary 4)

Clara Cecilia Mesa

“What joy do we find in that which constitutes our work?” [1]

What does Lacan refer to? what joie, what joy is Lacan talking about?

An important question because there have not been few affects that Lacan used to refer to the act known to the analyst: sublimation, as the only possible satisfaction at the end of the analysis in Seminar VII; depression at the end of the analysis in the Proposition of the Pass in 67; the satisfaction of the end in the Preface to the English edition of seminar 11; or the enthusiasm of the Note to the Italians, among others.

To get a little closer to this question, I refer to the place from which it starts: the “Address on child psychosis. In it, the question about the joy was not alone, but posed in a correlative manner with sadness, "a sadness motivated by a contained joy until summoning the feeling of incompleteness where it should logically be located"[3] and in the context of an ethic: The ethic in which the subject is constituted, "so as not to run the risk of forgetting that in the field of our function, in its principle, there is an ethic"[4]

This ethic of joy seems closer to the Spinozian ethic than to the tragic dimension of Antigone. Lacan has gone from the tragic dimension of desire to joy.

In Spinoza, the joy is the affect that leads to change from a state of less perfection to one of greater perfection, which means two things: first, for him, "perfection and reality[5] are one and the same", maybe we should not force things to say that in Spinoza as in Lacan, nothing is missing on the Real, the Real is what is and it cannot be any other way; consequently, second: Joy is what leads to persevere in being, his particular way of expressing the "become what you are". It opposes to any aspiration to an ideal perfection, the aspiration of "those who prefer to dream with their eyes open" or to live with their eyes closed. ¡Clamor of humanity!

So, Lacan refers to gai savoir? The joyful knowledge that opposes moral cowardice, as a sad passion of those who do not want to know? We know that this knowledge is linked to the "enjoyment for deciphering the unconscious". This is undoubtedly a vital movement of the analyst's action, from cowardly sadness to the joy of searching in the unconscious for varieté that, as truth and variety, deciphers the singularity of a truth that the subject does not want to know. But is it enough? Does this enjoyment of decipherment not leave the analyst in the position of the music lover, in Bousseyroux words, numbed himself in the “mélo-dit”?

Therefore, that joy counts, but it's not enough, is there another? The reference can evoke a satisfaction ...

Lacan hopes that the sadness is not on the side of the analyst who has proven by his own analysis that to enjoying decipherment has no other purpose than the escape of sense / flight of meaning.

A displacement then, towards another satisfaction, a satisfaction that is not deceived by the lying truth. It is a change of perspective, there is an essential way and it implies the Real expressed in his Address under the formulas of "being-for-the sex" and castration: joy or sadness are defined then, by the possibility that analysts have to be able to face their task in front of them. Thus, Lacan questions the analysts:

“Are we nevertheless at the level of what we seem to be, by Freudian subversion, called to sustain, namely, being-for-the- sex? We do not seem brave enough to sustain that position, Not joyful enough either.

Which, I think, proves that we are not yet fully ready. And we are not on the basis that psychoanalysts say too well to endure knowing it, and that thanks to Freud they designate as castration: the -being- for-the-sex”[5]

It is clear that the question that Lacan addresses to analysts, is a kind of "undead analysts, go letter! (lettre suit!)" [7] , are we up to our task or not? It is from this reissue of Lacan's call to analysts that we propose to question the guarantees of our School and its response to discourses.

Here are the questions that encourage the debates for the VI International Encounter of the School.[8] — What, in our function as a School, pertains to each of the discourses?

— How do we control our processes of selection and guarantee in the School?

— How do we situate them in the order of discourses, it being understood that none go without the other three with which it closes the orderly round of desire?

— How does the fifth discourse, that of capitalism, intervene there when it undoes this round in order to impose itself alone? — How can psychoanalysis offer to treat the impasses of the subject if contemporary discourse is sustained by not allowing it in?

— Between monastic retreat, with its threat of fragmentation, and imposture destined for collective retaliation, what strategies can be adopted to keep the reconquest of the Freudian and Lacanian fields alive?

[1] Translated by Natalia Bulla, reviewed by Clara Cecilia Mesa.
[2] Lacan, Address on child psychosis from October 22, 1967. In Other Writings. In Spanish: Paidós Editorial, Buenos Aires, 2012. Page. 389. Text not established in English. Compare with French version or Spanish translation, or, for English see the link: file:///C:/Users/clara/Downloads/19671027%20Lacan%20Child.PDF
[3] Ibid Page 391
[4] Ibid. Page 384
[5] I refer to the notion of reality in Spinoza, which can only be known by the third genre of knowledge. The other, for him, is mutilated and deceptive.
[6] Ibidem, pág. 385
[7] Lacan, The Third (“La Tercera”, title of a conference; in French is “La Troisième”)
[8] Marc Strauss. The School and the Discourses. “What joy do we find in that which constitutes our work? VIth E Scholl Presentation, Barcelona 2018 in: Wunsch 17

Del discurso del Otro al otro discurso (Preliminary 5)

Jean-Pierre Drapier

“I expect nothing from people but something from functioning.”. Jacques Lacan “Dissolution”. Seminar of 15 January 1980[1]

1/ What is an institution? A social formation founded by a master signifier, which more or less knots the four discourses that make the social link. This already means that the master’s discourse has a part in it and therefore so does its corollary structure, the one that comes to normalize it and thus reinforce it, the discourse of the hysteric. The modern master has appealed to the university discourse to pacify this discord and drown out the complaint of the subject who can do nothing else. At the risk of the glue linked to the universalizing slope of this discourse and of the foreclosure of the subject. The analytic discourse, the one that puts the object cause of desire in the place of agent, can bring forth the One, ensuring what Lacan called the round and round of discourses.

2/ Reflecting on the sentence to which I gave the force of an epigraph. On the one hand, we note that Lacan concluded that his School (Ecole) had failed to produce a glue (colle), hence the necessity of releasing it (D’Ecolage); and on the other hand, that it was a question of treating an institutional problem, by prioritizing matters of functioning, in order to ward off inter-personal effects. But not just any kind of functioning.

3/ Indeed, the School is not or in any case cannot be an institution like other institutions. What had sealed the failure of the EFP, its glue, was the failure of the pass, that is to say, the failure to put the analytic Discourse in a position to de-complete the other discourses, to impede the ron-ron of the master’s discourse, the brio of the university discourse, the unchaining of the discourse of the hysteric. If the analytic discourse is indeed the particular social link that prevails in the analytic treatment, then the device of the pass is “the royal road” to make it exist in an institution and the failure of that is truly an indication for the remodeling of the School at the level of a lambda institution. Lacan’s obstinacy in introducing the pass at any cost, in provoking institutional crises around this question, is explained by his desire to not repeat Freud’s failure.

4/ In the same way that analytic treatment must go beyond resolution of identifications to the signifiers and insignia of the Other, to end with the object(a), veritable structural knot, so the School cannot sustain the Discourse of the analyst except in a beyond of the three other discourses, in a beyond of the three forms of the Other’s demand that they incarnate. Beyond means first that they are a passage, second that one cannot do (se passer) without this passage, and third that the tension introduced by the device of the pass is what allows this passing beyond (dépassement).

Translation by Devra Simiu

What's at stake (Preliminary 6)

Sandra Berta[1]

If we supose the ‘moebian’ to that of the Psychoanalyst which operates in practice, we will have to check the cutting of the stripe. If we supose the knot, the cutting may demonstrate the absence of relation between Simbolic, Imaginary and Real.
Lacan in 1974, together with Isaac Newton, regreted that this assumption would tell us:  l’hypotheses non fingere[2]. The disavowal of the hypothesis being what is convenient for us to be incautious of the real. Consequence arrised by the experience, which indicates that the imaginary is stupid, the simbolic weak and both must be knoted to a real (impossible) if it is intended to make any change in the jouissance field.

Throught misconception it is possible that we ascertain that joy is horror as well. In other words, that the joy that is produced by our work is the horror of knowledge that we overcome when affected by the real of the practice. An analist, in its operating is oriented in the “ambition” of the real.

In the preliminary paper written to the International Meeting, Frédéric Pellion[3] warned us about this paradox imprinted in joy.
Lacan said that in 1977, betting on the equivoque referring to the unconscious structured as language (from Freud) and added his proposal (Lacan´s) of the real unconscious and the knowledge in the real.  I quote him in “Closure of the Journeys of the Freudian School of Paris”[4]: “It is an anti-freud (affreud) being that imagined this. After what has he imagined this unconscious to which he attributes a certain number of formations? It is not confortable to imagine but nevertheless, the ortog must play a certain role there. What Freud said, the affreud, is that there is no su-je there. Nothing supports the su-je[5]. In other words, the jeu[6] of the I (je) replaces what I try to enunciate today -  the “baffouille-à-je[7]”.
It is through this babbling that the affreud sieves in joy [Freude] and in the horrifying [affreux] of this business [affaire] that is the real unconscious “or the speculation through which I tried to provide support to Freud, the horrifying [affreux] Freud; does not have any kind of sense”.[8]  I add: this business [affaire] between joy and horror that concerns us; which we have to deal with [à faire] in that which it shakes itself [s’affaire].

In 1977, when Lacan had already done the modal jump to the nodal, he said that sense, in the real of the practice, doesn´t depend only on linguisteria which is ours, but also depends on the vector to the real.  In this “ambition” for the real, we can be persuaded that the effect of sense is produced by the evacuation of sense. What Psychoanalytical practice indicates is:  there is no sexual relation/proportion.
Concerning the real, in 1969, what is at stake is the object a and, in 1977, the “stuttering-stamerring-hesitation”. This doesn´t take out the value of the object: cause of desire, surplus-jouissance, abject, boneobject (abjeto, ossobjeto) that keeps operating on the restriction [coinçage]of the jouissance fields.

The bond (to be considered in the analyst´s discourse and on the histheric one) may produce this paradoxal allergy (joy and horror) modal and nodal. This affaire is a responsibility to those who bet in making ex-sist a school oriented by the cause of the real.
It is possible that the paradoxal joy is linked (knotted) to the enthusiasm – it is not for all, but for some – when they know how to make it there with the fate that the unconscious has in store for us “ having circumscribed the cause of the horror - his own - detached of all – horror of knowledge”[9] Joy may also link with the satisfaction of the end: the “other satisfaction” with which the speaking being, for being affected by lalangue, builds itself from the enigma of the Other in its alterity.

As Collette Soler tells us, “there is a contingency that introduces itself between the structure and its effects”.[10] The structure being the borromean, it falls on the articulations of the jouissance in the body and in the unknown knowledge of the subject. The “ethical contingence” may in good times [bonheur], make joy a permanent question that doesn´t discard happiness, but questions it: “What kind of joy we find in that which constitutes our work?”.[11]
Bonds of work that count with the non-relation/proportion should take into account this ethical contingency: what is at stake.

Translation: Maria Celia Delgado de Carvalho


[1] AME OF EPFCL, FCL-São Paulo, Brasil. Member of International College of de Guarantee (2016-2018).
[2] LACAN, J. (1974). The Seminar, book 22: RSI, unpublished (Lesson of December 17, 1974). 
[3] PELLION, F. Note about joy. In: Preliminary papers. X International Meeting of the Foruns – VI th International Meeting of the School (IF-EPFCL), Barcelona, 13-16 September, 2018 (available at:
[4] Lacan, J. Closing Journeys of the Freudian School of Paris, September 25th, 1977 – Unpublished+.
[5] Su-je homophonous with “sujet” (subject) “known (su)-je (je)” literally.
[6] Jeu: game. We chose to leave it in French in order to maintain the homophony with “je”.
[7] Baffouille-à-je: homofonic pun of bafouillage, or either “stuttering-stamerring-hesitation”.
[8] Ibid., p. 11.
[9] LACAN, J. (1964). Italian note. In: Other writings. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2003, p. 313.
[10] Soler, C. The lacanian affects. Buenos Aires: Letra Viva, 2009, p. 16.
[11] LACAN, J. (1967). Speech about the psychosis of the child. In: Other writings. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2003, p. 367.