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