who must be situated shy of the needs that Other can fulfill. Demand already consitutes the Other as having the 'privilege' of satisfying needs, that is, the power to deprive them of what alone can satisfy them. The Other's privilege here thus outlines
the radical form of the gift of what the Other does not have–namely, what is known as its love.
crushing brought on by the demand for love . . ."
energy of the so-called superego derives from the aggression that the subject turns back upon himself.
powerful aggression in the self. It generates it at the limit, that is to say, insofar as the mediation of the Law is lacking. Of the Law insofar as it comes from elsewhere, from the elsewhere, moreover, where its guarantor is lacking, the guarantor who
provides its warranty, namely, God himself."
of this not to have thought of themselves duty-bound to get back onto the slippery slope of morality–have deduced a fantasy that lingers on in the oldest moralistic religious preaching, that of oblativity. . .
is this thing he doesn't imagine, it's nothing–it's precisely his anxiety. . .
him. As you don't ask anything, he starts modulating his own, his own demands, which come to the place Heim. That's what the first entry into analysis consists of.
the frustration/aggression/regression dialectic, unless it's with a false and crude comprehensibility. . . No aggression arises in analysis. On the other hand, the dimension of aggressiveness comes into play to call into question what it aims at by its very
nature, namely, the relation to the specular image. As the subject exhausts his rages against this image, the succession of demands is produced that leads back to an ever more original demand, historically speaking, and regression as such comes to be modulated.
the castration relation appear.
not a being, it's between the two. It is not altogether Being either, but, ultimately it's pretty close.
the corner of every street, behind every window, in this abundance of these objects designed to be the cause of your desire, insofar as it is now science that governs it–think of them as lathouses. . .
when one really enters into relationship with the lathouse as such.
people were very keen to pretend to be interested in what I might have to say about the training of analysts, and I put forward, in a spirit of absolute indifference, since everyone was only interested in what was happening in the corridors, that there was
no reason why a psychoanalysis should cause anxiety. It is certain that if the lathouse exists, anxiety–since that is what we are dealing with–is not without an object. That is what I started with. A better approach to lathouse must calm us a little bit.
or that you do not occupy, or that you barely occupy, who wishes to come to know how you occupy it, and how you do not occupy it, and why you occupy it, and why you do not occupy it.
this word 'impossible' a strict meaning–that is to say, provided one determines them only at the level of our formalized truth–namely, that in every formalized field of truth there are truths that one can never demonstrate.
position of the lathouse.
impotence so much more, which also exists, but which is, as I will show you, in another place than strict impossibility.
people who are not analysts. They do not realize that I am doing something nice, that these are little signs of acknowledgement that I am giving them.
and that one has to extricate oneself as best one can.
"Why does he abandon the Freudian language of drives? To me, he abandons it, because he has elaborated on the drive as demand. And this you find in the most
classic texts of Lacan, to which you refer first and foremost, indeed, as "The direction of the treatment…," or "The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire…" where there is Lacan's grand graph of desire.
"The grand graph you use as a reference, what is it along the stages of its construction? It's a deduction – Lacan uses this word in the actual text – which
parts from the unconscious, defined as a signifier chain, which repeats itself and insists past the veneers, the desiderata, so to say, of the subject. In the frame of this deduction Lacan strains things so as to define drive as a demand, certainly
an utmost form of the demand.
"What he proposes as an algorithm, a matheme of drive, is a certain rapport between the subject of the signifier and demand (S<>D). He yet specifies 'It
is not a demand like the others.' It is a demand where the subject disappears, where demand disappears as well, where all that remains is the signifying cut – the cut you find in the Freudian concept of the erogenous zone as well as in the concept of the partial
object. Certainly it is a modified demand, though the most important, I would say, is that it remains envisaged from the demand and as a form of demand. And it's conditioned by the style of its deduction proper.
"Starting from the unconscious and from the unconscious as discourse, the central question animating the grand graph and its astute machinery is 'who is
talking?' – precisely who is talking when you talk of unconscious. Lacan's reply, with which he sweeps away all of the Freudian conception, is that the subject talks in diverse modes, there are different modes as to its message.
"Essentially it could be the Other that talks, and the subject is but the way back to the Other's parole, etc. I'm not going into what, from the gazebo
where you are, appears as details, yet leads to that; in this vein also drive is parole. Lacan, without releasing this proposition which is my own invention – drive is parole – leads you into it.
How to deduce the concept of drive in this frame? The deduction, I say is made up from 'who is talking?'
. . .
"You can ask the question at a well located point, a crossroad in Lacan's teaching – need, demand, desire. Where is drive? This construal of Lacan certainly
makes of desire the vector of the signifier, and all that is signifier is as well demand.
"Lacan highlights many types of demand. Three at least. There is the demand for need. Hitherto the quest of the object of need has to go through the apparatus
of language. It's developed in Seminar IV, for example, and there, as a derived effect, you have the vector of desire.
"Secondly, there is the demand for love, and already there love is the function introducing the Other as such. Not only the object it may give, but also
the love sign. And in Lacan's Écrits he inscribes desire between those two forms of demand. As he says, 'desire hollows between one side and the other.' You see the desire between the demand for need and the demand for love.
"But there is a third one. There is the demand for jouissance, which is drive, which likewise Lacan doesn't cease to assimilate to a form of demand.
"For a long time I've been interrogating myself with regard to 'The subversion of the subject…,' over the marked gap between the construction of the graph
and the final development. You don't get to fit the little pegs into the little holes. Another perspective is inscribed in the next five or six pages. It's done from a development which contradicts it enough, a development on jouissance as such.
"Drive once cast off, drive in the scheme of communication, so scarcely satisfies the exigency of disclosing what it's about, that the extraction of the
concept of jouissance becomes a must. And Lacan adds regarding jouissance as such, jouissance as completely different than what it is in the concept of drive. He doesn't talk at all of jouissance as a message that has its treasure
of signifiers, its point de capiton. You have a development on jouissance as such. For sure, Lacan found the way specially connecting it over that S(A), that point de capiton.
. . .
"The Law of desire – the law of desire is the law of the desire of the Other – compels you to renounce solitary jouissance, so that in the relation
to the Other you recapture another sort of jouissance, and for you to capture what could be sexual jouissance, much as it opposes phallic jouissance – the jouissance of the sexed Other.
That introduces a core problem as to what happens at the extreme of the vector – hanging on whether you emphasize the jouissance of the Other, or whether
you emphasize what needs to happen for it to take place, namely the subject's castration.
"In other words, from this scheme, two clinical figures are in essence deducible.
First you can put the emphasis on the jouissance of the Other, assuming the Other wants to jouir. Lacan develops it as the perverse version of the
renouncement of phallic jouissance – assuming the Other wants to jouir – thereby I assist the jouissance of the Other, I make myself the instrument of the jouissance of the Other.
"The second version is the neurotic version, the one to emphasize castration of the subject proper. At that moment it is not straight away 'the Other wants
to jouir,' it is 'the Other demands my castration.' That is to say, for the neurotic the Law is but a demand coming from the Other. From here his pretence may be questioned. Lacan translates it saying that the neurotic 'imagines that the Other demands
his castration.' Where the perverse recognizes, admits the jouissance of the Other, the neurotic, above all – if I may say so – sensible, is led into what from the side of the Other would be his demand of castration, which reduces the law of desire
to a castration demand.
"This is why Lacan can develop what is at stake at the end of analysis as the refusal of the neurotic subject to sacrifice his castration on behalf of the jouissance of
the Other. This also explains his paradoxical assertion: 'To him the Other doesn't exist.' It is not understandable. That means – to him the Other does not exist, insofar as only phallic jouissance has full value. In this instance he refuses the sacrifice
required for the Other to exist. He does not want it to exist. Lacan argues 'If he existed he would jouir my castration.'
"The scheme I am laying out here, confirms, for those who have racked their brain on these texts, most of these propositions. And for the others, it may
clarify their first reading, provided they want to do it.
"'Beyond the Other's demand you have to bear with the will of the Other.' Here Lacan deals with different modes of submission to castration, with different
modes of refusal to phallic jouissance and distinguishes two paths which carry on in the following way: calling upon Buddhism on one side, and upon the lost Cause on the other – the struggle for narcissism of the lost Cause."
you suppress the listener [of the unconscious], you silence the unconscious. You don't suppress the unconscious, but, on the contrary, you nourish it by silencing it. I would say you intensify or exacerbate the drives. If you silence the unconscious, you
exacerbate the drives. You exacerbate the death drive.
"And the repetition, instead of being spoken, is acted out. And, we insist on that. We are in the world which is taken by a powerful death drive in the name of security and health."
New Lacanian School
| Le site de la NLS
| Agenda en ligne –
| The website of
| On-line calendar –