biblio: Thematic Bibliography of the Congress (C. Bonningue)

from the website of the Congress:

 

Thematic Bibliography of the Congress

Catherine Bonningue
To place this theme in Jacques-Alain Miller’s Lacanian Orientation we are propose to take you on a voyage backwards in time.

 

The theme Semblants and Sinthomes was introduced on April 24, 2008 in Buenos Aires. (La Cause freudienne, no. 69). He will bring it up again in his lecture of 14 May 2008 entitled Tous le monde est fou [Everyone is Mad – TN].

This theme is furthered in his course (2008-09) called Choses de finesse en psychanalyse [Subtleties in Psychoanalysis –TN] on December 3, 10, 17 2008; January 14, 21; February 11 and March 4 and 11, 2009. The concept of sinthome is defined, reforged, notably with regard to the notion of singularity, and also to a new acceptation of the end of analysis, after a brief note on November 12, 2008. On December 3, 2008 he distinguishes psychoanalysis and psychotherapy from the point of view of the semblant. On December 10, 2008 he approached the question of whether clinical structures (as linked to the concept of discourse) are semblant or real. On December 17, 2008 he raises the question of the analyst as real or as semblant. On January 14, 2009 he treats fiction and semblant. On January 21, 2009 he returns to a previeously treated theme: psychoanalysis and the vacillation of semblants. On March 4, 2009 he again returns to the semblant with Feydeau, Voltaire.

In Tous le monde est fou, prior to Buenos Aires (April, 2008), on January 30, 2008, he had taken up the point concerning the “real proper to the unconscious”, called on by Lacan at the end of his teaching in association with a “discourse that would not be of the semblant”. The 13th of February 2008, still as regards Lacan’s last teaching, it was the materiality proper to the unconscious of the symptom. The 12th of March 2008, he gave a new definition to the symptom, that he formerly defined as a body event, and here, as an event of jouissance. On the 19th March 2008 he talked about the jouissance outside-of-meaning of the sinthome. On March 26, 2008, he evoked the sinthome’s satisfaction. On May 14, 2008, he advanced and enriched his exposé given in Buenos Aires. On June 4, 2008, he dealt with the truth as a semblant, varité. The 11th of June 2008, he touched on the point that makes the symptom its own world.

In the very last Lacan “L’inconscient est réel” [“the unconscious is real” -NT] (Quarto 88/89) he approached the question of the real as a symptomatic reply. In “L’esp d’un lapse” (Quarto 90) he spoke of the semblantization of the truth, varité, as well as the signifying articulation as semblant, followed by the theme the semblant and the pass. He also brought up chapter IX of Le sinthome which he will comment on later in the year, on the real as Lacan’s sinthome. In “L’esp d’une hallucination” [“L’esp of an hallucination” -NT”] (Quarto 90), he introduced the lecture of the chapter “From the unconscious to the real” in Le sinthome, that he will further define in “From the unconscious to the real: an interpretation” (Quarto 91). In “The pass bis” (La Cause freudienne 66) he approached the question of the end of analysis as satisfaction: knowing how-to with ones own symptom (savoir y faire). In “L’envers de Lacan” [“Lacan in reverse” -NT] (La Cause freudienne 67) he clarified the concept of meaning in the sinthome referring back to The ethics of psychoanalysis (see also: “De la nature des semblants“), taking on the question of the real and of truth with respect to the semblant, and using the three categories of the imaginary, the symbolic and the real. In “S’il y a la psychanalyse, alors…” [“if there is psychoanalysis, then. . .” -TN] (La petite giraffe, no.25) he touched on the notion of swindle in connection to psychoanalysis. On the 14th of March 2007 he clarified, yet again, the symptom/sinthome distinction and the sinthome/unconscious opposition. His reference was to Joyce who had no subscription to the unconscious and who incarnated the sinthome. Then he treated identification with the sinthome. This lesson truly forges the new concept of the sinthome. On March 21, 2007, he approached psychoanalysis according to the very last teaching of Lacan where the psychoanalytical semblant totters, the semblant beginning with meaning, opposed to the real. Then a return to psychoanalysis as a swindle. How to disjoin meaning and semblant was a question raised by Lacan. The three categories of the symbolic, the imaginary and the real are rearticulated in order to grasp notably the lie, the object a, and anxiety. . . He pursues the redefinition of the sinthome. On the 28th of March 2007, the practice of psychoanalysis is approached using the semblant, then the notion of hole – which could refound the meaning of desire – and of the sinthome differentiated from the real. Pursuit of the three categories and of the place of poetry, to which he had already previously alluded. On May 2, 2007, following Lacan, he announced that there is no liberation from the sinthome, a proposition which can be problematic, to be made precise, then touched on the theme of love and the semblant. On the 23rd of May, 2007, he approached the question of meaning, of the real and of the symptom. On the 30th of May, 2007, he returned to the semblants in connection to the “visuals” of Lacan, up to the torus.

The year of the Lacanian Orientation III, 8, in “Illuminations profanes” (Quarto no. 62), he took up again the articulation symptom/sinthome, following his contribution to the Study Days of the Ecole de la Cause Freudienne, this distinction echoing in a series of concepts. Attacking a reading of The Seminar “D’un Autre à l’autre” by Jacques Lacan in “Un schème porteur” (La Cause freudienne no. 64) he touched on the hysterical symptom as a body event in the case of Anna O. In “Une ronde structurale” (La Cause freudienne no. 64) he evoked the object a as a semblant (Encore). In “Un reel absolu” (La Cause freudienne no. 65) he clearly stated that the foundation of the Lacanian semblant is in The Ethics.

In “Pièces détachées” one must refer to the part consecrated to the sinthome: “Presentation of the Sinthome” (La Cause freudienne no. 60). “Résonances” (La Cause freudienne no. 60), “Le ratage sexuel” (La Cause freudienne no. 61), “Un trou dans le reel (La Cause freudienne no. 61), “Nomination” (La Cause freudienne no. 61), “Lituraterre inconnue” (La Cause freudienne no. 62), “From little a to the sinthome” (La Cause freudienne no. 62), “La lettre volée” (La Cause freudienne no. 62). On March 23, 2005 he returned to what he had developed in “De la nature des semblants” and continued with the real and the semblant on

The year of Lacanian Orientation III, 6, in “L’ére de l’homme sans qualités” [The Era of the Man Without Qualities -TN] (La Cause freudienne 57) he approached the sinthome as well as the category of the semblant. In “Introduction au Séminaire de L’angoisse“, “Plaque tournante”, “Une ligne de cassure” and “Un fil d’Ariane”, (La Cause freudienne 59), brief allusions to the category of semblant.

In “Un effort de poésie”, “Psychoanalyse et societé” (Ornicar 85), brief allusion to the notion of semblant.

The year of Lacanian Orientation III, 4 (November 28, 2001), he evoked the symptom in the last teaching of Lacan. The 15th of May 2002, he again took up the notion of sinthome, opposing it to the classical symptom. And anew in “Intuitions milainaises” (Mental 11 and 12).

In “Le lieu et lien” he approached the consistency of the symptom and its status as real in “Le clivage psychanalyse/psychothérapie” (Mental, 9). On the 13th of December 2000, he treated the semblant with reference to Lacan’s Seminar XVII. The world is swept clean of the real and peopled by semblants. In “Psychanalyse pure, psychanalyse appliquée à la thérapeutique et psychothérapie” (La Cause Freudienne no. 48) he returned to the semblant produced by psychoanalysis, then returned to the question of symptom (or sinthome) in a psychoanalysis which would be outside-of-meaning, the barrier between symptom and fantasy then being effaced. Return to “Du symptôme au fantasme et retour”. He also briefly treated the symptom-woman. In “Le reel est sans loi” (La Cause freudienne 49) he approached the question of the dupe and non-dupe with respect to the semblant and the object a which would merely be a semblant. On the 2nd of February 2001 he fleetingly evoked Freud’s relation to the semblant and Lacan’s knot-function as his partner-symptom. On the 7th of March 2001 he touched on the theme of the tottering of the semblants in psychoanalysis and the question of the symptom as singular to the subject and not only particular. On the 21st of March 2001 he defined the sinthome as an antifunction and commented “I am there where it enjoys”, identifying the I with the symptom that enjoys. On the 28th of March 2001 he pursued the definition of the sinthome linked to defence and to the signifier that also produces enjoyment going towards a symptom as mode of enjoyment. On the 2nd of May 2001 he continued with the enjoyment of the symptom and with the concept of the sinthome which goes further than the unconscious. In “L’ex-sistence” (La Cause freudienne 50) he approached the notion of ex-sistence which founds the real and the semblant. In “Le dernier enseignement de Lacan” (La Cause freudienne 51) he approached rapidly the writing of the sinthome and its structure as being semblant.

In “Les us du laps” the 17th of November 1999 he approached the link between symptom, jouissance and transference. In “Le coit enigmatisé” (Quarto 70) JAM, using Borges, spoke of cultures and semblant, including coitus reduced to a semblant. On the 3rd of December he made a brief reference to the symptom as ersatz, substitute. In “La nouvelle alliance conceptuelle de l’inconscient et du temps chez Lacan” (La Cause freudienne no 45 he came back to jouissance, symptom and transference and approached the question of the unconscious, the subject supposed to know as semblant. On the 19th of January 2000 he evoked the naked semblant and treated the semblant according to the discourses. In “Théorie du caprice” (Quarto 71) he pursued semblant and discourse. In “Quand les semblants vacillent. . .” (La Cause freudienne 47) he developed the theme semblant and discourse. On the 8th of March 2000 he touched upon the subject of the session, apparatus of semblants.

The year of Lacanian Orientation III, 1, in “L’ethiquette de la psychoanalyse” (Rivages, 6), he evoked the semblant according to the discourse of science and emphasised the distinction real/semblant (meaning) and came back to the symptom as a fundamental mode-to-enjoy. On November 18, 1998, he developed the semblant/real theme, a semblant that dominated the real in the first teaching of Lacan, and then the reversal when the semblant is no longer dominant over the real, associating it with the unconscious. In “Le transfert négative” (Praxis, 4) he continued with the antinomy of the real and the semblant in association with defence, that is to be disturbed, as well as the symptom as real, the sinthome as conjunction between signifier and jouissance. The 13th of January 1999, he proceeded with the real of the symptom. On January 20, 1999 he noted that at the beginning of his teaching, Lacan minimized the dimension of Befriedigung in the Bedeutung of the symptom – nonetheless highlighted by Freud – and gave it prominence at the end. The 27th January 1999 he quickly commented on Seminar XVIII and returned to the Befriedigung of the symptom. In “Les six paradgmes de la jouissance” (La Cause freudienne 43) he took up the question of the symptom in the last teaching of Lacan on the theme of savoir y faire with the symptom. The 14th of April 1999, he commented on “Lituraterre” and defined the distinction letter/semblant. In “Biologie lacanienne et événement de corps” (La Cause freudienne 44) on the basis of Lacan, he proposed the definition of the symptom as body event, a theme widely developed.

In “Le partenaire-symptome” on the 19th of November 1997, he acknowledged that the term partner-symptom that he introduced using Lacan, was in vogue. He placed on the horizon the order of the symptom, symptom that he approached in the last teaching of Lacan. The symptom became sinthome (Latin root). Is the symptom semblant (imaginary and symbolic) or real? Or a mediation between semblant and real? His interest then turned to the use of the symptom (savoir y faire). The symptom as apparatus of compensation commends itself in honour of Freud’s Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. He made of this text the key to the last teaching of Lacan. The symptom is not then truth but jouissance. Think the symptom on the basis of surplus jouissance and not of castration. He then established the partner-symptom in Encore. In “Qu’est-ce qu’être lacanien?” (Rivages, 2) he made a brief reference to the symptom in the last teaching of Lacan as a name of the beyond of the unconscious. The 3rd of December 199,7 he treated at length the analytical symptom, then he commented on Freud’s Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety, a text left on the side in the first Lacan. The symptom is included in it in a problematic of jouissance. He made of this text the quilting point of the second topology. The symptom is defined there on the basis of satisfaction. The 10th of December 1997 he pursued the reading of Freud’sInhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety, pointing out the antinomy in the orientation of psychoanalysis: towards fiction or towards the real. When Lacan approachs his very last teaching, he referres to this text in an orientation towards the real, that is, towards the symptom. The symptom, in Freud’s Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety is conceived as satisfying the drive. It’s the “other satisfaction” developed by Lacan in Encore. The symptom satisfies instead of the expected love-object. From then on, Lacan presents the symptom as a necessity and no longer as a contingency. No drive without symptom. Therefore the fate of the symptom is to impose its use (savoir y faire). On December 17, 1997 Jacques-Alain Miller pursued the definition of the symptom, opposing it, in Lacans last teaching, that makes use of the real, and no longer the symbolic as in the first teaching. It allows us to oppose the semblant (imaginary and symbolic) to the symptom as real. This new definition of the symptom allowed him to redefine being Lacanian. Lacan’s Seminar, D’un discours qui ne serait pas du semblant proposes to define a psychoanalysis that would proceed neither from the symbolic nor the imaginary, but from the real. Bentham’s theory of fictions was examined, determining that Lacan’s category of the semblant goes beyond fiction as an effect of truth or as an effect of signification. The 7th of January 1998 he returns quickly to Bentham. The 21st of January 1998 the partner is defined on the basis of jouissance which founds the partner-symptom. The 28th of January 1998, he returned to the theme of symptom and other satisfaction. He evoked the Lady of courtly love as the partner-symtpom par excellence. On March 4, 1998, he laid down an equivalence between the Other place of jouissance and the symptom. The 11th of March 1998, he pursued his consideration on the Other and the symptom. The jouissance of the symptom supports the Other, the Other that dissolves jouissance. He tried to justify the symptom of the barred Other. In “Un théorie des couples” (Praxis, 3) he recalled that the partner-symptom is a punctuation practised in Lacan’s teaching. He introduced a new angle. In “Un repartitoire sexuel” (La Cause freudienne, 40) he opposed symptom and ravage as modes of jouissance, corresponding to the masculine and feminine respectively. In “Une nouvelle modalité du symptom” (Les feuillets du Courtil, 16) he defined the symptom, concept beyond the fantasy, as being the incidence of jouissance of the signifier on the body. Instead of the drive, the symptom, or sinthome, according to Lacan’s last teaching, is the concept of the relation of the unconscious to the body: it is real. The real symptom (Lacan) comes in the place of the myth of the drive (Freud). But the sinthome needs an operable concept. The 27th of May 1998 he said that the partner-symptom is laid down as symmetrical to the speaking being whose vocation is to replace the couple, barred subject and Other. He proposed this formula: between the man and the woman there is the symptom; and also: the symptom is the means ofjouissance. It’s also what one has to live with; one has to deal with it. The pass is then defined as the symptom, as mode ofjouissance, laid bare. The 17th of June 1998 he diverted us to the theme of semblant with Voltaire.

In “L’Autre qui n’existe pas et ses comités éthiques”, in “Introduction”, (La Cause freudienne, 35) he announced the era where everything is merely semblant and proposed to move psychoanalysis into the place between real and semblant. In this empire of semblants which is beginning, it becomes a matter of sorting out a real appropriate to the unconscious. In “Les pathologies contemporaines de l’identification” (Letterine, 16), he tackled identification, the Name-of–the-Father and the semblant. The 11 of December 1996, he evoked the status of the symptom using castration conceived as a mode of jouissance. In “L’Autre n’existe pas et le symptom exist” (Letterina Archives, 5) he spoke of the Other that has the structure of fiction and took as example the subject supposed to know or The/ woman. He also evoked the affinities between symptom and lie; the symptom would be a lie about the real. The symptom comes in the place of the Other sex. Lacan made a staple out of the symptom. The 8th of January 1997 he reminded us that Lacan reduced the object a to a semblant, a mixture of enjoyment [jouissance] and meaning (enjoy-meant). The semblant is meaning cut off from the real. The semblant is inscribed in the real by way of the symptom. He proposed to try his hand at: the real is always tracked down with the semblant. He pointed out that in Encore, Lacan sections the knot between the semblant and the real, the real which excludes meaning – with the exception of the symptom. The 15th of January 1997 he commented: meaning is semblant; then: there is some real in language; which excludes it from the order of semblant. The 22nd of January 1997 on the basis of a work by Searle, he spoke of a real outside the semblant. In “L’Autre qui n’existe pas et l’expérience de la passé” (La Cause freudienne, 36) he evoked Lacan who in Encore merely makes of object a a semblant on the path from the symbolic to the real. The symptom is inserted between the semblant and the real. The 26th of February 1997 he pursued his critique of Searle’s book with respect to the semblant and the real. Then he continued with the clinical category of symptom situated at the point of interference of the semblant and the real. He evoked what does not cease in the symptom, its et caetera, and also the varité [the truth that varies -TN] of the symptom as laid down by Lacan. On March 5, 1997, he said to make the symptom the real that the psychoanalytical experience deals with. In “La theorie du partenaire” (Quarto, 77) he set out the Name-of-the-Father as a semblant, in place of which Lacan promoted the symptom. The subject’s partner is the symptom, enjoyment-partner [partenaire-jouissance]. The symptom goes further than the unconscious; it occupies the place of the sexual non-relation. He aimed at a general clarification of the concept of the symptom. He handled social semblants and individual symptoms. The real of the object a is distinguished form the semblant of the object a. The symptom is a remedy to knowing what to do with the other sex. It manages to make partners of speaking beings. The symptom, like the fantasy, makes one happy. The partner can be symptom or ravage (boundless). It’s a matter of using of the symptom well, of knowing how to do with it, beyond the crossing of the fantasy. In “Une diatribe” (La Cause freudienne, 37) he returned to the theme of the symptom beyond the fantasy and that of the symptom and the sexual relation. He insisted on the respect of semblants in order to make good use of them.

In “La fuite du sens”, November 22, 1995, he evoked the reduction of psychoanalysis to semblants and then, the semblant as a condition of jouissance. He spoke of the sinthome as the fantasy that had absorbed the symptom. In “L’écrit dans la parole” (Les feuillets du Courtil, 12) he spoke briefly about semblant communication and jouissance. In “Le monologue de l’approle” (La Cause freudienne 34) he evoked psychosis and semblant, apparatus and semblant. The 7th of February 1996, he brought up signifier and semblant, and jouissance. In “La pulsion est parole” (Quarto, 60) he spoke of castration and semblant. The 21st of February 1996 he affirmed that the object a is only a semblant. In “Nous sommes tous ventriloques” (Filum, 8/9) he evoked Other and illusion, semblant. On March 27, 1996, he spoke rapidly about jokes and semblant. On April 3, 1996, he mentionned on the basis of Encore that the object a is only a semblant. The 22nd of May 1996 he treated briefly Witz and semblant.

In “Silet”, November 23, 1994, he quoted Lacan in Seminar XI on symptom and satisfaction, and contentment. The truth can only talk semblant about jouissance. The 7th of December 1994, he brief alluded to symptom and signifier, and to a new definition of the symptom still to come in Lacan. On January 18, 1995, he touched on the object a as semblant, based on Encore. The 8th of February 1995, he returned to the object a as semblant, then evoked the phallus, then the signifier and finally the discourse, in their character as semblant. The 31st of May 1995 he evoked the subject spot [sujet tâche], and semblant.

In “Donc”, on December 1, 1993, he quickly recalled the other as semblant and the end of analysis. March 16, 1994, was the fort-daand the semblant, then the object a as semblant. In “Le signe de l’amour” (Letterina Archives, 2) he talked about respect for the semblants and castration. The 4th of May 1994 he recalled the mode-of-jouissance as symptom. On June 22,1994: the Name-of-the-Father as semblant.

In “De la nature des semblants” on November 20, 1991, he presented the semblant and defined it as a category. The speaking being is condemned to the semblant. The invention of the semblant as a category is a step on the road to the Borromean knot. The semblant is opposed to the real. He enumerated some semblants: father, mother, phallus. He recalled the sexual semblant, spoke of truth and semblant. He spoke of the affinity of the woman to semblants. In “Commentaire du Séminaire inexistent” (Quarto, 87) he spoke of the semblant as an operable concept. He persisted with being and semblant. He developed the Name-of-the-Father and semblant, the interpretation as semblant. The 18th of December 1991 he approached the theme of the semblant and the categories of the symbolic, the imaginary and especially the real, to return again to the semblant and the Father. On January 18, 1992, he treated the object a and semblant (Encore) and then analyst and semblants, knowledge and semblant. He raised the question: is the unconscious a semblant of knowledge? The 15th of January 1992 he persisted with the true and the semblant. He made a brief reference to Barthes, L’Empire des semblants. The 22nd of January 1992 he broached the semblant and the true, the object a, and being and the semblant (Encore). On January 29, 1992, he spoke of women and semblants, illustrating this with Zazie. The 5th of February 1992 he continued with semblant, real, jouissance and object a. He took up the notion of phanère (epidermal appendages like nails, hair), of shadow. He recalled the comedy of sexes with the semblant, the phallus, between the man and the woman. The 12th of February 1992 he pursued the topic of man and woman, the postich woman, then the speaking being. The semblant is a mask. He recalled Wedekind’s Masked Man, The woman, mask of the Father. The 26th of February 1992, he returned to Encore and the semblant between the symbolic and the real. The semblant is a signifier that is not one amongst others. He proposed the semblant as a quilting point. He then returned to semblant and real. Lacan defined the semblant as the Name, hence the Father can incarnate it, the phallus as something to lean on for the Father. He continued further with the object a as semblant. And the master-signifier, the Oedipal law as semblants. In the pass one triumphs over the semblant. He approached the symptom at the end of analysis, the sinthome as the fundamental mode of the jouissance of the drive. On March 25, 1992, he came back to the semblant between the sexes and to the opposition between semblant and real. He approached the truth as semblant (Seminar XVII, L’envers de la psychanalyse). He approached the symptom linked to enjoyment and truth, then the masochistic semblant. The 1st of April 1992 he again broached the semblant and truth, and cynicism. He spoke of hysteria and of the semblant of jouir [to enjoy -NT]. On April 15, 1992, he dealt with jouissance and semblant, and the imaginary. The 20th of May 1992, he touched on semblant, phallus and feminine sexuality, and father. The 27th of May 1992 he came back to semblant and phallus and developed this theme. The 3rd of June 1992, he took up the semblant from the point of view of phobia and fetishism. The 17th of June 1992, very briefly: the phallus simulacra.

In “Harangues”, December 5, 1990, he recalled rapidly the semblant in order to criticise it: the infamous satisfies itself with the semblant; pretending to believe in the unconscious. March 13, 1991, he spoke rapidly about semblant and phallus. The 12th of June 1991: brief allusion to the Name-of-the-Father as semblant or symptom.

In “Le Banquet des analystes”, April 4,1990: brief reference to jouissance and symptom.

In “Les divins details” in “Une grande fresque”, March 1, 1989, he evoked phallusand semblant. He then raised the question that opens his course two years later: is the semblant only of the signifier? On May 3, 1989, he spoke of symptom and jouissance.

In “Cause et consentement”, the 9th of March 1988, he evoked object a and semblant, and being.

In “Ce qui fait insigne”, November 5, 1986, he announced that with the insignia, the semblant is on theagenda for the year. November the 12th 1986, he noted that the S1 is a semblant, the plus-one of the Other. January the 7th 1987, he briefly mentioned the master as semblant. On February 4, 1987, he considered the analyst as semblant of the object of the drive. February 11, 1987, he raised the issues of semblant, saying, and S1. He returned to his course “”Des Reponses du Reel”, raising the issue of the real as semblant. He also briefly approached pass and semblant. In “Le sinthome, un mixte symptome et fantasme” (La Cause freudienne, 39) he treated the sigma (S) of the symptom. The symptom is a composite: signification and fantasy or relation to jouissance. It’s the sinthome. He evoked Lacan’s formula “the symptom is that which does not stop being written.” He defined the symptom as a mode of enjoyment of the unconscious (Seminar RSI). On March 18, 1987, he noted that what makes an insignia is the symptom. He commented on Encore:object a and the semblant. Lacan defined all symptom as a mode of treatment of the real by the symbolic. March 25th, 1987, he went back to the knot he had established between imago and sinthome and pursued the insignia and the symptom, and the jouir [enjoyment -NT] in the symptom, etc. He evoked Joyce. April 1st 1987, he mentioned the opacity of the symptom. He went back to the new definition of the symptom which is the sinthome, sigma, S; then the identification with the symptom at the end of analysis which is not a signifying identification but that carries jouissance. The symptom is the subject’s mode of jouissance. S1 is symptom, producer of jouissance (RSI). He referred to what Lacan said about Joyce: the symptom abolishes the symbol. He evoked the symptom as a mathematical function (Lacan). The 29th of April 1987 he made an approach to the symptom and the writing of the unconscious (“Television”), and to the hysterical symptom as a mode of enjoying the unconscious. The 6th of May 1987 he spoke about Joyce and then about the wild operation of the symptom which transfers the one of the unconscious to the writing of the letter. On May 20, 1987, he went back to the symptom which ex-sists to the unconscious. He continued with the new status of the symptom as linked to the bla-bla-bla (lalangue), and again with Joyce. The 3rd of June 1987 he again took up symptom, consistency and ex-sistence. Quoting Lacan: the real is my symptomatic reply. The 10th of June 1987 he returned to the functional formula of the symptom. He accounted for the symptom as symbolic in so far as it has an incidence in the real. He continued with the sinthome and knot. He proposed that we pass from the definition of the symptom as an incidence of the symbolic in the imaginary to a sinthome, effect of the symbolic in the real. The 17th of June 1987 he mentionned Joyce. The 24th of June 1987 he set down the symptom as an invention. He implicated the body in the symptom. Then pursued Joyce.

In “Extimité”, November 13, 1985, he made a quick approach to discourse and semblant and to the theme of the tottering of the semblants. The 15th of January 1986, he brought up love and semblants, then little a which is nothing but a semblant of being. On January 22, 1986, he returned to little a as a semblant of being (Cf. “L’étourdit”, the analytical discourse). The 5th of February 1986, he quickly mentioned the feminine masquerade, masquerade of the semblant, then love and semblant. The 26th of February 1986 a brief reference to love and semblant. The 23rd of April 1986 a brief approach was made to the object a and fiction, semblant, analyst and semblant. The 4th of June 1986 he mentioned acting out, real and semblant, then knowledge and semblant, truth, knowledge and semblant: truth he has the structure of fiction; then real and semblant. He returned to discourse and semblant, Other of the Other and semblant, Name-of-the-Father and semblant.

In “1, 2, 3, 4”, on November 14, 1984, he evoked signifier and semblant. The 24th of February 1984: brief reference to nominalism and semblant. The 3rd of July 1985, he mentioned psychoanalysis, discourse and semblant, then object a, real and semblant. The semblant acts, but is nevertheless not true. Then he mentioned hysteria and semblant.

In “Des réponses du réel” November 9th, 1983, he briefly mentioned real and semblant. December 14th, 1983: object a and semblant. January 25th, 1984: Barthes and L’Empire des semblants, then the analyst and semblant, then masquerade and semblant. On February 1st, 1984, he spoke briefly of analyst, semblant and being then, on February 8th, 1984, of the symbolic Other and semblant Other. On February 29th, 1984, he went back to analyst, object and semblant. In “Lecture critique des Complexes familiaux” (La Cause freudienne ,60) he briefly mentioned artifice and semblant. March 21, 1984, he alluded to Joyce. March 28th, 1984, he mentioned letter, signifier and semblant, and referred back to “Séminaire sur La Lettre volée” for the semblants of signifying strategy. April 25, 1984, he spoke of truth and semblant, then hysteria, truth and semblant. On June 6 1984, he mentioned ethics and semblant, then artifice and semblant, and again analyst, object a and semblant. June 29, 1984, he returned to analyst, object a and semblant.

In “Du symptom au fantasme, et retour”, November 10, 1982, he spoke of hysteria and semblants. January 12th, 1983: brief reference to the phallus as semblant. January 26th, 1983, he mentioned the semblant as the imaginary face of the signifier. February 2nd, 1983, he returned to analyst and semblant. February 23rd, 1983, he quickly touched on master-signifier and semblant. 16 March, 1983, the double and the semblant. 23 March 1983 the psychoanalyst offers a semblant to the real. 20 April 1983: semblant in the discourse. May 11, 1983: brief reference to the phallus as signifier. On May 25, 1983, he dealt with meaning and semblant in the case of little Robert. June 8, 1983: de-sense (dé-sens, Lacan) and semblant. He qualified the semblant as imaginary and symbolic.

In “Scansions dans l’enseignement de Lacan”, on November 25, 1981, he mentioned briefly respecting semblants. On January 20, 1982: the phallus as semblant. On March 3, 1982: signifier, jouissance and semblant. On March 17, 1982: hysteria, phallus and semblant. On March 24, 1982, he treated satire and semblant, then speaking being, discourse and semblant, and master-signifier. He continued with Barthes and semblants. He affirmed the semblant not as imaginary, but as a non referential signifier. He spoke of the semblant in the master’s discourse. He mentioned Valéry and Montesquieu. He stated how psychoanalysis proceeds from the semblant. Psychoanalysis exposes the real at stake that the semblant includes. Then he approached the theme of women and semblant, and the phallus. On April 28, 1982, he evoked briefly the cause of desire, truth and semblant. On May 12, 1982, he mentioned paternal metaphor, jouissance of the object a and phallic semblant. The 23rd of June 1982, he dealt with signifier and semblant, then logic and semblant, truth and semblant, paranoia and semblant, subject, real and semblant. Semblants are to be respected.

* * *

A choice of texts

“Des semblants dans la relation entre les sexes” (1992), La Cause freudienne 36, “Of Semblants in the Relation Between the Sexes” in Psychoanalytical Notebooks 3, 1999) JAM approaches the semblant in particular on the feminine side. The woman does not exist. Hence the mask of nothing that women affect. The semblant has the function of veiling the nothing. Being the phallus implies a reduction of the Other’s having it to the semblant. He comments on Medea, the true woman, then Madeleine (Gide), La femme pauvre by Leon Bloy. He distinguished the semblant on the side of the man (associated with having) and on the side of the woman (lack). With the postiche woman the semblant (le paraître) is essential, it appears to be her property. He distinguishes Lacanian postiche, a semblant acknowledges being a semblant. He approaches feminine cynicism. He stops on the end of analysis, identification with the symptom, and semblant.

“Lacan avec Joyce” (1996) (La Cause freudienne, 38), a seminar reading of Lacan texts on Joyce.

“The psychoanalytical instrument” (1997), Quarto #64: JAM talks about the real and the semblant, and about meaning in the analytical experience. Then he tackles the symptom, the most real in the analytical experience. The last teaching of Lacan, driven by the antinomy of the real and meaning, is particularly attached to the question of the symptom. The symptom is a phenomenon of belief. Lacan will try to see if the symptom can be elevated to the state of what does not stop be written. Cf. Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. The symptom is the form taken by the drive imperative, in that it does not stop making itself heard and does not stop satisfying itself. Lacan speaks of the truth-variability (varité) of the symptom, that is, of a variable truth at the level of the deciphering of the symptom, but there is all the same a nucleus of the symptom which is a simple letter that repeats in the real. What one loves fundamentally in someone is his/her symptom, that is to say, the way he/she handles the absence of the sexual relation. Everyone has a symptom for a partner, a mode-of-jouissance. It’s a question of knowing how to use it. One doesn’t rid oneself of it in the sense that it is what is most real for everyone.

Psychoanalysis, the city, the communities (1997) (Tabula, 2): JAM refers to Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. He speaks of the symptom as a substitute-satisfaction. He evokes the real, jouissance and semblants, then signifiers, ideals and semblants. Lacan stated that the father is a semblant, and one can do without him on condition that one knows how to use him. He takes on the theme of schizophrenic semblants, then: everyone is delusional. It relativises the Name-of-the-Father, the Oedipus. Then he addresses surplus enjoyment [plus-de-jouir] and semblants. Lacan calls it sinthome. He speaks again of Searle, of the social order and social semblants.

Lacanian politics 1997-98, 1998-99; “Un divertissement sur le privilege” (7 April, 1999) Letterina Archives no. 7, ACF Normandy there JAM approaches the question of semblants and real, and also the symptom-parnter.

« Le Séminaire de Barcelone sur le symptôme », Le partenaire-symptôme:

Important contribution to the symptom on the basis of Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety

Conclusion of Leçons du sinthome (Study Day, ECF 2005): important contribution to the sinthome.

Intervention in the ECF Study Day of 2008 (Presentation of the Study Day’s theme of the ECF 2009): JAM states that the release of the symptom is never complete. Freud emphasised the persistence of symptomatic left overs. Hence the notion of the sinthome which broadens the concept of the symptom. The sinthome, in contrast to the symptom, is never released. In what way does the sinthome authorise, or not, the subject to call himself analyst? The symptom is a formation of the unconscious, signifying through and through. The sinthome is not a formation of the unconscious, it includes the real. At the level of the real can we give to the analyst a status which would not merely be semblant? There is scope to verify in the pass procedure by which singular path the signifying realisation of the analyst, taken one by one, linked up for them to a revelation of fantasy. What is the incidence of this event on the sinthome? What new trajectory of jouissance can be traced from there?

* * *

For Lacan on the semblant: one will refer firstly to Seminar XVIII, D’un discours qui ne serait pas du semblant, Paris, Seuil; and for the sinthome to Seminar XXIII, Le sinthome, as well as to the texts on Joyce. And in a general way, to the last and very last teaching of Lacan, notably The Seminars . . . ou pire and Les non-dupes errent. As for texts closer to the first Lacan, the following papers will also have their interest: “The Freudian Thing” (on the desk), “Seminar on ‘the Purloined Letter’”, Seminars and texts which bear upon the upside down vase, “The Signification of the Phallus”, “Discours à l’EFP”, “Radiophonie”, “Lituraterre”, “L’etourdit”, “Télévision”, “. . . ou pire”, his contribution to La grande Motte, “Note italienne”, “Préface à l’éveil du Printemps”, “La Troisième, his contributions at Yale with the students from Massachussets, his concluding remarks at the EFP Congress 1978. Etc.

Copyright 2009- Association mondiale de Psychanalyse/World Association of Psychoanalysis

Translated by Richard Klein
Advertisements

One Response to “biblio: Thematic Bibliography of the Congress (C. Bonningue)”

  1. text: “Reflections on the Formal Envelope of the Symptom” (JA Miller) « SemblantsAndSinthome's Blog Says:

    […] and sinthome.  The elaboration of Miller’s work on these two themes is carefully traced in Catherine Bonningue’s bibliography posted earlier, and we encourage our readers to read the work of Miller in this context.  We will start with an […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: