Notes for Asansi Lectures: There are some loops you want to work on.

Loops they have said they

looked forward to appear during your brutalization so they could steal it, claim authorship, and
benefit from it (Garcia Bacca: “Vagas nociones” etc, in the essay of his you had to rework, and this
means that they were looking forward for this to happen (that section they themselves call:
cynical…boxing against the fascist when you were 9 yrs old.) So, it is very likely that that person
that was there when you purchased the Lacan biography, equipped with mental protection, was
some type of accessory. On page 94 the same operation is repeated but they edit out (generative)
out of contradictions, but it also has a register of an egoic trap, in the sense of substituting the
truth of what they have done with a metonymical object of something I had to develop, because
of what they have done to them, and the gap between that object and what they have done is ∞,
it is difficult, as they say, to give measures to that. But this is clearly a constant for them.There is
also on page 74 the idea of noticing the final shape of the sinuous curve that governs the entire
geometrical movement of their enjoyment. Then, in order to remain in touch with their “God”
identity they point to Tour of Calculus curve that looks like a smiley face (link to page 110 below),
but that is a general curve for basically anything that ever existed: Galileo´s quote. Another
moment of self-mastery: to be seen drive. On page 74 how they look at victims, the issue of the
“God” sig, and the need for exploitable infantilized victims, and their will to incestuality also on
page 74. On page 7-sexy-9 a crucial point of losers not to be imitated, and their commitment with
exploiting infantilism. Pages 50, 51 (link to 106) , 83 the imaginary phallus and concerts that veil as
art. Page 86 where they get the fantasy of “jail” etc. On the issue of the gaze pg 87. Predicting the
future, and displacement, the gaze pg 88, pg 8-sexy-9 on the issue of exploiting infantile
vulnerability for snuff. On page 90 why victims owe them. Pg 96; language, book burning, site
burning, pdf, and doc burning, psychosis, infantilism, the n.o.f, and social relations.pg 97
Guantamo + to exploit and induce exploitable infantilism. Page 97 using the “God” sig. Potentially
exploitable levels of infantile vulnerability by snuffers against lmmigrant families learning a new
language. Page 102. On page 103 (connect to pages 50-51) why the Oe Complex must always be
there as well as the three registers, also linked to their prohibition, and infantile snuff and stalkers.
Page 109 on how they looked forward to exploit infantile snuff. On page 113 exploiting the site of
specularity in another way (very efficient use of infantile snuff, very capitalist) in which they turn
themselves “into God”
Part 1 of 4 First Session (someone outside screams his name before I write it) Manuel [you know
where this goes] Asansi.

Analyzing the Sausserian Sig Signified

Signifier

He talks about a case from his own experience. An ealderly aunt 70 yrs old, retired, and one days
he fiends her dressed up in a wedding gown, because she claimed her fiancé was waiting for her at
a public plaza. In this case he says that you will find that the Sausserian sign is not working
properly. The reason why it is not doing so is, because what we call the sign, the model of it
means, and implies, that what we called the signified has an intimate connection to what we think
and feel (cathectxes?), and then once this thing we call the signified establishes the relation we
just mentioned with thought and feeling then it goes out searching for a signifier (el significante
oportuno) or adequate signifier in order to be able to convey, transmit the information in it. He
actually says that the signified once constructed in one´s head goes out after a signifier que le
permita ser transmitido (a specific function. It searches for this property in a way) [12:30min]
(make sure to apply this to the snuffers prohibition: “Do not think in terms of truth or falsehood”. I
guess this is for a disconnect of 53 septillion centillion level)

(β)What about people that tell the victims: “I know you”*n, but try to treat them as exploitable
objects. They know the information they have stolen, and then when they talk to the victim erase
all they say, and keep on saying “They do not think we know them?” So, they have all that
information to not treat them as ends in themselves, eject themselves from the social order, and
present themselves as “God” in real life, this is not a lie. Then proceeds to say “You just want to
get me and shock me with what you say” even though they surveille, and know this is not the case.
The proceed to “create their own reality”, because of the violence they allow themselves with
others.

Ex: when someone makes a declaration of love: “I love you” I want to believe that the person
saying this means it by connecting such declaration with the appropriate set of feelings (meanings
found in feelings the capacity to be a container of such) α[when they brutalize your body, and then
ask the victim to say “We were responsible for falling out of the grace of Dei-Dei the lord” or “We
tempted the U.S. army, Navy,…..because our sons were excercising their citizenship rights” etc.] Yo
quiero pensar que la persona verdaderamente sienta esto. Que una vez que el significante “I love
you” is used (after it is constructed) que el recipiente pueda tener una experiencia (emocional,
truth as rooted in the affects) de esto. [the construction of experience, the issue of truth,
rationalism, empericism, skeptics, sophists] He says that feelings, and affects govern what
signifiers will be used. The signifiers will play a secondary role in a sense.

It is for this reason that Saussere in his book General Linguistics expressed something to the point-
the one being currently made- that linguistics was in some way related to semiology. Semiology
understood to be the science of symbols at the center of social life this is what he meant by the
term semiology. This field is found within the field of psychology. So, we have: linguistics,
semiology, and psychology and this is the theory of the subject given the way Saussere elaborates
how for him the three branches are related to one another (how they co-determine one another
perhaps), and how his theory is built upon their interconnections.

The three fields just mentioned presuppose what is called “the classical subject”. In the notion of
the classical subject – found in the times of Aristotle – one, anyone, speaks, and through speech
they say that they are thinking, express what they are feeling, and through the signs – signified
one is able to transmitt it to others. One has ideas in one´s head, and through the signifier I am
expressing them to the other person.

So, he gives an example of a professor who is always adjusting his pants obsessively, but he does
not know why (a really strong theme within this whole thing. The pants falling or having to be
adjusted, and what they signify), and proceeds to ask rhetorically “why do you keep on doing it”
he would not answer in a way that is in accord with the models we have just elaborated. He
cannot find a signifier appropriate to that which he is feeling/doing/being anxious about. Here
ends page 2. What follows is on page 3.

For Asansi his inability to explain why he does it is indicative that the Sausserian sign, algorithm,
schema, does not work. At least in his case it is not working the way it should. (the issue of the
limits of instropection?)

Another example: The Freudian linguistic slip. You will go from saying “Es that you fuck too much”
to “I am sorry, I mean to say that you fail too much” [spilling of jouissance, and the issue of sexual
difference?] these are cases when we intend to say something, and end up saying something else
(against what he would consider his intention/will), and he has to go through this being
embarrassed about it (taking responsibility for having crossed a line: Eidelstein talks about how
the modern subject sometimes thinks himself guilty for certain dreams. That the notion of modern
subjectivity generates this myth that somehow you reach this far in controlling that much with
instropection, or, as Lacan calls it self-consciousness, but nevertheless continues to relate to the
b.o. guilt in this instance in an irrational way) So, he says that this is unlike the movie (?) the
exorcist where the possessed girl says one thing and then an Other (Satan) speaks through her. He
said the film spoils it for introducing Satan instead of letting her (it = inhuman) be that Other that
speaks (the inhuman core of subjectivity. Like the example of the guy who almost runs you over, or millions of other
cases where you encounter something like this. In our case the brutalize us into shutting down n.o.f and expose us to
their imagos, and mnemic traces only to shirk in horror once the victim assembles them together. They experience a
moment of non-identity. It is enough to read the notebook for them to go through it. You also find it when CIA censors
their documents on torture etc.)

He says that the 3 examples show a limit that is not very clear: to the professor not knowing why
he does what he does to “the exorcist” as an expression of “psychosis” (psychotic withdrawal
away from N.O.F: “do not think in terms of truth or falsehood aka do not introduce standards” and
“Goce is forbidden for those who speak as such”) To someone trying to say “failure”, and, saying
something else “fuck” [a failure fuck, contradiction as a “fuck”, or sexual difference, or the usual
set]

Another example: You are having sex whose name is “X” and in the middle of the thing you say
“Do it like this ´Y´” or it could be the case you want to tell a girl “you are so tender” or “you do
have tenderness” to “you have great tits” Here ends what was on page 3 what follows is on the
back of page 3.

We find these to be common experiences: forgetting names, wanting to say something, and
saying the other, forgetting things, all of these things are described in Freud´s “The
psychopathology of everyday life” [To this you add 38!+ modes of torture and all sorts of other
stuff, and they begin to call themselves God etc, and act on it]

He says that all of the above examples show us that the Sausserian notion of the signifier does not
work. It is a limited model. When people claim that Saussere claims that the sign is the union of an
acoustic image with a conceptual image Asansi says that Saussere never said such a thing. What he
says is: Conceptual image on top (that is to say the signified) acoustic image (the signifier) below

s/S (a circle must be drawn around it) this is so, because he is tying the signified to the mind
as well as affect. Were you not to do this then the sign would not work. This is why the sign is
organized vertically in such a way. In fact he uses the metaphor of the paragraph (cuartilla)
19:00min. The metaphor of how signified and signifier on opposite sides of the same page. To say
that both elements of the sign are on the same level. But the limitation with this theory of the
sign, Asansi says, is that it does not allows us to explain why we experience anxiety. He claims that
if you have never been anxious it is very likely that you could be in a psychotic state (foreclosed
from the signifier that induces sexual difference, symbolic castration etc) [So, psychotics do not get to
experience anxiety then? You would have to see the world they construct for themselves, and how they sustain
themselves in it. In Seminar 3 Lacan points out that signification still takes place even though there are a number of
limitations clearly] What was on the back of page 3 ended what follows is on page 4 front.

He explains that the entire tradition of contemporary linguistics depends upon that theory of the
sign. So, he quotes this dude called Enrique Rojas [the usual set] that says that otbe able to be
happy one must distinguish between momentary volitions, and that which we may call a voluntad
ferrea [same set]. To distinguish a wish or desire of that which truly is in your best interest (a
desire que te convience) from what we may call a pragmatic point of view. A psychologist such as
him presupposes the Sausserian sign in its original formulation. He presupposes a substantive
degree of control (does not take into account the unconscious, sexual difference etc), and that you
are in a position to distinguish between both.

He talks about people with experiences of something going bad, and doing the same thing
regardless of the experience [the usual set: self-erasure of cause. They time this with someone firing a shotgun
outside our window 11/03/2017. Loop back to page 1 α] You know it is not in your best interest to do it that
you will not be appreciated, or, well liked by the manati mental-idiots if you keep on snuffing
minds, torturing, raping, you remind yourself of what it means when you being to black-out
documents, but they insist on doing it.

Enrique Rojas has and will unquestionably tell you what is best for you, and this means that he has
(acquired? How? Also loop back to β page 1) the signified to which I will need to adjust to be
happy (22:11min) All this is based upon the way the Sausserian Sign is organized.

We could say that he classical subject is the subject of the Sausserian sign s (you still have to
draw a circle and an S beneath the bar.) Here ends page 4 front.

What follows is on page 4 back. Asansi continues: It is said that Lacan did a structuralist reading of
Freud. He claims this is not the case. What is the case is that Lacan used the Materical of modern
linguistics, and the structuralism of Levi-Strauss to articulate (elaborate a functioning) toda una
(develop) a very powerful theory, and at the same time debunk (desbancar) the theories of
structuralism (al estructuralismo). According to him he is neither structuralist nor post-structuralist
(25:20min)

Lacan says that the sign should be: S/s [signifier above, and the signified below] He claims that all
of Lacan could be explained using this algorithm. The new sign is characterized by inverting
Saussure´s sign. The question becomes why does he invert this sign? (27:35min) Asansi claims that
this was due to his constant exposure to patients with mental illness when he was training as a
doctor, and after he completed his training.

From this he points out that feelings and affects are secondary, and not primordial. What is
primordial is the signifier, and what follows it is the signified. (30:32min) What do we mean by
signified? The signified is the meaning. El sentido, and whomever says the signified he is saying the
referent.
Ex of the primacy of the signifier: You have to use the bathroom or you will burst. You rush
towards a restroom, you find the place where they are at, and see two doors, but they do not have
the names “men” “women” you may enter whichever, but with the idea that you could be
entering the wrong room (an extra added pressure/anxiety?). It is only when (here ends what was
on page 4 back what follows is on page 5) the signifier “men” or “women” appear that what Asansi
calls a continuum of the real becomes organized (discreticized) with this appearance of the
signifier (31:34min) El continuum is organized/assembled together and becomes something else:
from the real to reality. It is because of this reason that you will find the signifier goes up on the
algorithm, and the signifier goes down. It is to be found below the bar (they will later say that the
signifier falls into the signified (particular) after the logic of retroactive signification is accomplished)

He then proceeds to talk about the professor with the obsession of adjusting his pants, and how
this behavior (modelo de comportamiento) in which something (lo lleva) compels him to carry this
respective process out yet he is unaware of it, because the signifier – you may agree – does not
belong to us. The signifier arrives to us from outside, and this is expressive of the lacanian formula
“El deseo es siempre el deso del Otro” that is what “the signifier comes to us from the outside”
means.

And here we start to understand that if el deseo es el deseo del Otro, desire being the desire of
the Other, it will be logical that I am not going to be able to understand it. When the psychologist
or psychiatrist proceeds to tell you “I will tell you what is convenient for you” what you have here
is the signifier of the doctor not the patient´s. If the modality of generating solutions by E. Rojas
was the general structure it is as if we always had an E. Rojas always redirecting our attention
towards why the signifier occupies the upper part, and the signified the lower part of the
algorithm. (here ends what was on page 5 front what follows is on page 5 back)

At 33:40min he draws the lower part of the graph of desire for which I will leave room.

He insists that the graph will help us grasp a great deal of Lacan. This graph explains (graph 1) why
the signifier is on the top portion of the algorithm and the signified below.

Explanation of the graph:

Δ: mythical subject of pure need. C = code of the Code, M = message: the message (signified), S-----
S´ = is understood as synchronicity and diachronicity. The history of language, and all the
(linguistic) resources that belong to it. S: the barred subject as a result of: Δ, C, M, S----S´

He says that what he will explored later will be the transformations (the dialectical way in which
the graph constitutes itself all the way to the upper part of it?) the present graph undergoes as he
explains it. The graph is different from Jakobson´s “Communicative Functions” which are what the
communicative scheme consists in (he actually said that Lacan, Roudinesco mentions this as well,
studied Jakobson carefully and even invited him to his logic du fantasme seminar)
The communicative scheme consists in: Un emisor that sends a message to a recipient using a
channel a partir de un codigo, and a particular context: these are the communicative functions
according to Jakobson. (here ends what was on page 5 back what follows will be found on page 6)

So, Asansi claims that after having read Saussure and Jakobson he disagrees with them on a
number of things. The C that stands for code will be renamed “A” or “O” (for Other). He proceeds
to read Graph 1. We start from the need (biological in character. Affective need) When the child
asks something from this mother [in its fetal form the child was silent and in no need to ask for
anything] after birth. As a consequence of being born the child has a need to ask, the need to
demand something. The child proceeds to reclamar (make a claim upon the mother) the presence
of his or her mother, or wants to eat etc. At this level of development he/she have two options: he
either cries (tantrums) which are expressive of a high degree of impotence, and vulnerability: “I do
not control if she goes away, and/or if she will be back, if so when etc. (notice the brutalized state of Bruce
and how, through their snuff-incestual-violence and prohibitions, they demand this to continue so they can keep on digesting more
infantile experiences of asphyxiating death. Notice that the brutalization and torture to the point of not being able to read, or, them
burning documents etc. The imperative effort that goes to push him out of language as a priority: infantile snuff as a priority)

He moves on, when you are interested in someone you could engage in guiños (that is why they were
obsessing with Poleo today, and forced mom to do so for the last few days: upset his “drogba” ways to enter into the apts of victims of
c.a.h does not lead to lo que el quiere que acontesca: 11/03/2017) you
could also get in that person´s way to capture
his or her attention so they may look at you, make visual signs. Either way I have to be able to
make a demand, to be able to ask for what I want.

Later we will see that when we are interested in someone 3 or 4 things could happen. The first
thing, and probably the best, is that the person does not pay attention to me. The second that the
person does pay attention to me: that both of us get exited, go to bed, and all of the sudden you
discover that you do not get an erection, and she no longer gets excited (the fantasy), but there is
something that does not work, function proceed to get activated and fail (in?)to “I do not know
why I do not get excited”, but we are attracted to one another nevertheless, [you know where
this goes], but if afterwards I go pass a street, and see a butcher slicing meat [same set] and I get
aroused, and I do not know why… (here ends what was on page 6 front what follows is on the back
of the same page)

In the context where arousal should have taken place I do not get aroused, but in the context
where I should not I do. If I do not get aroused where I should that may not turn out to be such an
awful thing.

3rd situation: I find someone attractive, and that person finds me attractive as well. So, we go to
bed, everything goes great (todo es fantastico [same set]) we get out of the room very happy
(contentisimos) satisfied, but after we get done I proceed to walk towards a public place
(42:48min) with a trench coat, and flash someone: what happened? This would be the worst
outcome that is to say that it is not the case that things do not work (the absence of failure of
symbolic castration) because ultimately you will encounter failure. It would have been better had
the trench coat man had been sexually rejected.

If I have a need it is, because what I desire is not in front of me. The neurotic will tell you “I want a
cajita”, but he says it in a way that expresses a substantive degree of urgency “I want it now” (en
mis narizes), and if the neurotic does not get what he/she wants it is experienced as a catastrophic
consequence [same set] Anxiety inducing, but the obsessional neurotic – nevertheless – has to
linguistically ask for it. Everyone has to engage in the process of vocalizing demands, and ask for
things. If they have to ask it has to be done through language (tiene que ser atraves del lenguage),
and that is why one is forced to head towards the code, and make use of said code, and this is why
Lacan says “El deseo pasa por los desfiladeros de los significante”

This phrase means that “If I want to ask for something I have to approach the code (acercarme al
codigo)” [45:34min] here ends what was on the back of page 6. What follows is on page 7. I have
to use the code, and the code is made up of signifiers of signs (de signos en definitive) 44:40min

La linea discontinua of graph 1 (the one that looks like ∩ after it lands on s(O)) indicates that
the subject of pure need will reach the code in better or worse (mejores o peores)
conditions (lacking or fulfilled i guess: what I had written at the time). It is possible that the
day I ask for something I will find myself under the effects of alcohol-drunk- and may not be able
to reach the code appropriately [same set] leading me to use some other word than the one I
would have liked to use (una palabra en vez de la otra) that I may speak – he speaks in a stuttering
manner – and the stuttering leads me to not being understood by people I am talking to. I will
have a failed encounter with the code (me encontrare mal con el codigo). In situations where I
may be able to use the code appropriately (que me encuntre bien con el codigo: this way to
phrase it in spanish emphasizes the possibility of not having the intended desire encounter the
Other as language. This is what I wrote at the time.) something is going to happen (va a suceder
algo) and that is that I will be producing a message which is what we find on the left side. I will
leave some room for the graph he shows. He shows the message produced is on the s(O)
retroactivizing the initial sig.

Up until this point, that of the appropriate encounter, and the production of the message – you
may tell me this simply reflects the communicative schema. Instead of Jakobson´s insistence that it
is an emisor (someone transmitting) sending a message to a recipient you will find a “Δ” that is
forced (se ve en la obligacion de: the self-reflexive character of his phrase, but can you find it at
this level of delta?) to pass through the code (pasar por el codigo). (here ends what is on the front
of page 7 what follows is on the back of page 7)

It is important to pay attention to the following: when one produces a message you return back to
the code [retroactively: the movement is what he is talking about] (vuelve otra vez al codigo), and
here is Lacan´s discovery, this is the key to Lacan´s discovery. What we will call “La sanction del
Codigo”, because when the message is produced the code has to sancionarlo [it has to sanction it]
(approve of it or not).

It approves of it in the same way when a small child says: “Quiero hsdkfuas sa” [the child begins to
elaborate a message, but it becomes slurred] the mOther cannot understand it. The Other:
mother, father, brother will tell him/her “Ojo asi no te van a entender”, “Pay attention (or listen
up) if you say it like that no one will understand you” so he continues as the parents “what you
want to say is hamburger not hmmrgrg (notice the difference in the phonetics what counts and
what does not. A way to look at it), and he will try to adjust (given the missed encounter) to the
(appropriate, sanctioned) message.

Ex: It is not unlike your iphone and the “what´s app”. You proceed to write a message, the code
receives it y proceeds to sanction it (y viene el cogido [what is active and passive] y lo sanciona)
[the message acknowledged in the response? I had written back then] it corrects you (te corrige)
and this is the function of the code: to authorize, to validate etc (it has this imaginary dimension to
it link to the Mexican lacanians)
And this is why [same set: he uses por tanto. You can tell the place where their heads are at
hopefully given the context: Bruce, dad, mom, yourself etc. It is important to remember this] when
one produces a message, after you are done formulating it, you wait for the Code´s sanction,
because the code has to approve, disapprove, sanction ,or, not. (Side note: notice this is not some
B.S. bourgeoisie invalid recognition theory it is crucial)

The code becomes active in its functions (can approve, authorize) for two reasons: they will be
separated for didactical purposes not because they are that distinguishable from one another
(47:17min)[here ends what was on the back of page7 what follows is on the page 8]

What Asansi means to say is this: the first reason relates to grammar. It is of a grammatical order
(es de un orden gramatical) whether what I have said has been said correctly, or, incorrectly: if I
have chosen the appropriate word, or, not. If I want to insult someone it can take place. I can say
“You are a son of a bitch” I could tell myself this was not the adequate insult. It had to have been
more incibido: even stronger (mas fuerte. The insult or the sigs leave an unprojected remainder of
egoic aggression) this simply will not do (esto no me basta; unfulfilling I had written at the time:
satisfaction in being object-a in itself for the Other a◊$)

So, we can see that it does not limit itself to being a problem of just incorrect spelling or grammar,
but problems with grammar could happen: you could say something the wrong way, say the
wrong thing leading the other person to ask you “What do you mean? That is not the way you
pronounce that” when we speak a second language [same set] and we pronounce something the
wrong way. For example: “To fuck” we say in Spanish “fornicacion”. The other issue relates to the
adequacy of the selected word for what I wanted to say (as in the case of the insult? I had written
back then) The latter two examples correspond to the 1st level of authorization, approval.[in the
usage you will be able to notice all the failures of how one or the other does not convey or satisfy
in some way or another between languages as an expression of cultural b.o., but if analysis is
universalizable then this will be a difference, but it will not be an obstacle in a sense: snuff
microphones are satisfied in both countries with the same types of noise campaigns. The issue of
egoic aggression, snuff violence, rationalizations, the same algorithm etc]

The second level – el mas grave [meaning of greatest importance] (48:28min) – is when someone
asks you “Do you love me?” and you respond “Yes, I do love you” and when you respond it does
not show, or, betray any doubts, but (pero las dudas estan adentro) you have reservations about it
in your own mind (so you still can pretend to be convincing enough or exploitative enough of that
person´s lack “all the way through” but you will not find, as he says, that the person, his mind, stop
there in a way. Not all of you is transmitted in a way) The key is: when need does encounter the
code (cuando la necesidad se encuntra con el codigo) the code is incapable of absorbing the
totality of the need, and that is why we talk about authorization, because the code is
(essentially/structurally) unable to absorb the need.

Ex: when you bump yourself against or are pricked by thorn, and you shout “Ohh that hurts”, and
the recipient is like all “come on, it cannot be that bad” (here ends what was on page 8 front what
follows is on page 8 back)

Is it true that when you try to (introduce a phrase to enjoy by way of differentiating yourself from the other,
because you enjoy like him, and in such a way go mad in front of the victim you want to delegitimize: 2pac all eyez on
my “To my nigga pac…”) express your pain you reveal the extent to which it hurts? The answer is
clearly not, and this is the problem. When Lacan says: “Nuestra, necesidad, deseos, y impulsos
have to go through the desfiladero (groves?) del significante” No significa otra cosa que: 1st)No
tengo other option. I have to go through (atravesar) el codigo in order to say what I want to say
(the level of non-identity, in identity, with the Other written now, not back then) 2nd)When I say
that which I want to say, I will be sanctioned (me van a sancionar: un tipo de autoridad that I do
not own, the absence 1:1 identity with a meta-language) I will say something , and this will be
exposed to a process of authorization. In such a way- I will be answered, authorized – that I will
realize that it is impossible that the code absorbs the entirety of the need.

These two are key to be able to understand Lacan. Otherwise we will not understand him. The
graph of desire 1 is the graph of how every signifying chain is articulated (the logic of the motion
of how it constitute itself, how it puts itself together), because a need is always behind the impulse
to communicate. Need leading to a search for a code which leads to the production of a message,
and there is a movement of retroactivity (retroaccion) towards the code (al codigo) [when the
authorization occurs?], and in that occurrence of retroaction algo cae.

Example: When you go fry an egg once placed on the pan there is always some substance of the
egg that remains outside (in the shell, on the pan´s handle, on the counter etc) [here ends what
was on the back of page 8. What follows is to be found on page 9 front.] that which remains
outside is the famous myth of “the lamella” of Lacan. What falls outside of it (51:40min) [lo que
cae fuera] that which is left outside is the key to understand the unconscious. The question, once
we have arrived at this point, is the following: (I have to leave room for the graph he shows)

A line moves from the right to the left delta to $ and the Other line moves from S----S´. They cut
another, and that act of cutting is expressive of the fact that two forces meet. In reality one moves
in the opposite direction to the other (una se mueve contra la otra), because language as language
that is the signifier shown in S to S´ is autonomous with respect to the subject. It has its own
history. “It is not my fault that the word “ternura” y “ternera” se asocien and differentiate
themselves by only one vowel [same set] by a simple phoneme. The modality of differentiation
(set of syntactical operations) was not developed, created by the speaker (consciousness, and the
limits of introspection plus the conceptualization of self-consciousness in Lacan) It is found in
language, and that is why it goes against my needs (at this point of the development of the B.O.?),
and when I engage in the process of encontrarme con el lenguaje I may find myself saying what I
did not want to say, and language has played a trick on me. He says that le ha jugado una mala
palabra. [If you notice these guys are going crazy with self-mastery throughout. Differentiation is a
central concept in the linguistics or perhaps anything within this realm. This is like predicting
logical operators. After that it is all displacement.]

So, what this graph tries to get across (here ends what was on page 9. What follows is on the back
of page 9) is how the signifier affects the subject of pure need, and how from understanding
graph 1 which presents itself as not very complicated we can thing of the subject in inverted form:
that is to say the classical subject of Descartes, Hegel etc. The classical subject of which Hegel
speaks is a subject that in order to have self-consciousness (conciencia de si) not to have a
sensation/feeling about itself (no para tener sensacion de si), but rather self-consciousness it has
to desire the Other´s desire. It is not enough that I have the desire to eat a plate of spaghetti. In
order for me to be a human subject I have to desire the Other´s desire. I have to desire that the
Other desires me (que el otro me desee a mi) In order to gain his/her acknowledgement this
Hegelian system that presupposes the subject, that is to say, the classical subject and develops it
to its culmination is inverted by Lacan on graph 1, and this is what in Ecrits is called “the
subversion of the subject” [the issue of the entrance of the unconscious?]

The subject is being subverted in the Hegelian subject, because to have self-consciousness
presupposes that a partir del reconocimiento que en mi tiene el deseo del Otro I adquire an
identity, but it is an identity about which I am conscious, and we will see that the key here consists
in saying that it is the other way around (the paradox of I-as-an-Other? The implied identity in
non-identity) The desire of the Other turns me into an unconscious subject (alienated in the
signifiers of the desire of the Other by acknowledging, sancionando, authorizing their meaning?
That is what I wrote back then. In a sense it is true, because it ultimately refers to an Other that is
not embodied by a literalized metaphysical entity) which is the opposite of what one finds in the
Hegelian system. (Here ends what was on page 9 back. What follows is on page 10 front)

Kojeve´s lecture on Hegel: When Kojeve talks about the dialectic of the master and the slave he
says the following: “The desire of the slave is the desire of the master. The slave himself does not
have his own desire” (Good for targeted individuals I had written: so there is no introduction of
n.o.f within that lived logic of bareness, laziness, and projecting incestual violence) so he only
desires what the master desires, and this formula will be repeated by Lacan, but in an inverted
form (forma inversa) 56:33min (“The master does not have a desire other than to be desired: the
slave´s recognition” I think this is him quoting Kojeve still: but within snuffing violence this is
reduced to a signifying look. It does not matter if they are brutalizing you and even control if your
limbs or immune system functions it is simply not enough.)

A review of the history of the subject (56:50min) [I wrote: does not take place repressed? Example
of? Probably rationalizing their interference since this thing censors thoughts worth having, or, the
truth] He then continues.

Everyone has a need regardless of your age, but we can agree that the structure is different in
childhood than in adolescence, and adulthood. In order to truly understand graph one we have to
retrotraernos (retroactive ourselves, our position) a la narrative psychoanalytical (code: example
of?), because it is in this narrative where we will be able to understand fully (plenamente) this
schema and on top of that we will not understand it, and not to understand it is the best that can
happen (I had written: not absolutized by the symbolic? In a sense, but it means not to register
identity between some “x”, and some “y” where there is none that is how I am reading this
nowadays 11/04/2017)
The role of the mother (58:12min) In the formation of the subject in psychoanalysis, because it is
truly important, this is strange, because se trata de Freud, and they speak of the mother. Everyone
says things as well with regards to the degree of importance given to that relation derives from his
context – the Victorian era – so it made sense that they would understand the relation to the
mother and father as key to the family, and this in turn justifies an emphasis upon the relationship
with the mother. (here ends what was on page 10 front what follows is on page 10 back)

We could say that this has a degree of truth, but it is not absolutely truth (esto [the importance of
the relationship] es verdad y no es verdad [what follows is another pathgate towards becoming
“God” a simple translation predicting logical operators] It is as true as it is false.

When Lacan faces or deals with this issue on his text on the family he is able to explain this issue
rather well. When we speak of the mother we are speaking about the biological fact. Whether in
the ultimate instance (es que a fin de cuentas: the point is? something about the bottom line) it is
about another subject (another Other: mother, dad, brother, and after that: snuffers) (se trata de
otro sujeto) “x” the pure subject of need “x” needs someone to touch him (here is when you
encounter the sig “he was abandoned” totally gone) that someone may feed him, that someone
may show him the way the path to be followed of what Lacan, and later Deleuze, and Guatarri will
call territorialization, because the body has to be terrotializable. The only way for me to know
where I like to be touched is that I be touched [same set] otherwise I will never know. A child that
is never touched would not reach the level of the social subject (that is something else. They are
“touched” by millions only to eject themselves) but it does tell you something about why they
surround you with snuff-incestual exploitative violence for infantile snuff. The role of the mother is
derived from a fundamental fact, and this must be taken rather seriously, because if it is not taken
seriously the oedipal complex will never be understood. It has nothing to do with a desire for
incest.

In order to understand it we have to understand something basic, and that is that human beings
(1hr50min) when they are born – in their state of desbalimiento [needing of Others for survival:
this is exploited via torture in the case of targeted individuals. That is what I wrote back then] The
1st thing to notice is that there is an absence of self-consciousness (drowsiness fragmentation is
one example, the other is heat torture….It is at this point where they put those fantasy screens of
them being desired) The relationship of the mother to the child is one of total libidinal investment
in upon this “x” (him or her: no self-consciousness, openness, polymorphicity etc? what I had
written back then while translating his lecture)[here ends what was on the back of page 10. What
follows is on the front of page 11] that investment of libidinal energy is total/absolute dedication.
This is also found – this level of emotional investment – in romantic relationships: when you enter
into massive, violent, moronic state of NFL-DNA delusion, and you compare that person with the
Cosmos or something stupid like that. Then I make a comment: he seems to be exaggerating, but
he is correct, because whomever has fallen in love then had entered into a relationship of absolute
dependence? If you hear someone seriously telling you, not some game theoreticalized snuffer,
“My life fell apart when that person left” etc. If this happens in a relationship between adults then
it is even more intense for a child in the state of helplessness he describes since he truly has no
one else: our case for example is worse. It would have been better had the other not been around
to surround us for infantile snuff purposes with a genocidal army, and a Nazi state. That level of
libidinal energy dedicated to the child is absolute, and it is headed in one direction, there will
clearly be other subjects (snuffers lusting after infantile snuff, and murdering anyone they could have met that was
not like that. As they put it “We are the best you will ever have”) that invest the child libidinally (game
theoreticalized snuffers call it “investments” within capital relations that means exploitation), but the mother is
rather important. When we see a child cries to make a demand “x” it does so, because it does not
have the signifiers with which to make a demand. Since it lacks signifiers it is not free (another
important feature for the “really erotic, and exemplary manifestations of the b.o.” the issue of mental segregation etc.) [
I had written back then: also the effects of shock on targeted individuals, the degree of trauma, and insistence upon
violence, and silence] When Freud watched his grandson who played with (a linen ball of some sort I
thought maybe I am wrong) car by throwing it away from him yelling “Fort”, and when he would
make it return he would yell “Da” [same set] in amazement well at that state of development they
cry as a modality of communication was no longer necessary, because the child had the capacity to
symbolize the presence, and absence of the mother, but crying returns when he is unable to
symbolize x´s (anxiety and the signifier) relationship to the mother.

The mother is in charge of two things:

1st) She delivers in dar afecto: provides the child with care and affect. She can give caricias, but she
also introduces the child into (what snuffers insist be prohibited at all costs all of it endured by
their corporate Nazi, and belligerent state) the law: when she says “we do not do that” etc (I had
written back then: Tie to states of regression, to CIA manuals kubark + also counter intelligence
documentary) [here ends what was on page 11 front what follows is on the back of page 11]

When the mother begins to prohibits things to the child that is when Lacan says that we enter the
metonymy of desire (la metonimia del deseo) or the metonymical nature of desire. In plane words
this means that the child enters into a situation of vertigo (disorientation, as if staring into an
abyss and the possible anxiety that relates to it), because he does not know whether he is loved:
sometimes they seem to love him at other times they seem they do not. This particular state of
doubt forces the child to adopt a position. A position similar to that found in romantic
relationships between adults in their moments of conflict, or, conflictive moments when they are
really upset with one another (register of egoic-violence out of frustration intensifying throughout
the conflict?) one of them will fall into the following reasoning “There is trouble, but that person
still loves me” aka “I am still the object of their desire”, and this is what Lacan calls “The imaginary
phallus”, and which he represents with the letter ɸ (you may connect this with Schwartz´s
methods on where to fix attention: to the things you desire when super-egoic violence tries to
shock you out of it) In this instance the child is forced to position himself as phallus of the mother.
What phallus means here is “Punto the Fijada” (the point where you fix your gaze) This point is a
point from which one is able to accumulate (aglutinar) the multiplicity, diversity (diversidad) of
perceptions. The point of focus of the multiplicity of perceptions. [I had written back then:
capacity for attention use for targeted individuals]
The imaginary phallus is the condition so that in the not so distant future the child adquires an
identity, a punto de fijesa (de atencion) phonetically speaking phallus resembles Faro (I had
written back then: those lights used at night to detect if planes are flying above. I think the term in
English is lighthouse) The child thinks himself to be to be in the position of the phallus, because it
is going to desire the desire of the mother (in one of his lectures Zizek talks, or, links to this the
fact that the kid is invested with all this libidinal attention by the family (he presupposes exists in our case.
Notice the level of violence the wanted for you since you were a kid, as well as that into which you were born the, national level, anti-
semitism of “hijo el imber” (U.S. introduced with the help of Dei-Dei and other people. Dei-Dei was glad to show you they were U.S.
international) which is the way it sounds to a kid. It is “hijo del Himber” that is why these group of people are the garbage of the planet,
and how you get to “you all are lobsters we snuff-torture for infantile snuff now applaud to what we are doing to you: it is art I am
that is at the other end, and asks himself “what is this ´x´ that they
telling you it is art and culture it is also….)
see in me (moi) that is more than me, and that this is the supposed subject. It seems like he will
dialectizice into the I-as-an-other) here ends what was on page 11 back what follows is to be found
in page 12 front.

That is “by doing so I am able to get a hold of this noria (object of desire I guess. It is what I had
written back then)” the same is applicable to a dancer. He has to have a fixed point not to get dizzy
as he rotates around his own axis spinning [same set] that is the function of the imaginary phallus
to “command” this level of attention (1:07:40min)[notice also its abstract mental nature]

The above mentioned concepts, and relations area important to understand the formation
(development) of the subject. The imaginary phallus is a previous stage to the one that Lacan calls
the mirror stage. The mirror stage does not limit itself to the fact one has mirrors at home. The
mirror is used in a metaphorical sense (as a first way to scientifically approximate something he
trying to get at: signifiers, and signifying imagery, the things with which we identify? I wrote this at
the time of putting it here on writing) that is, the recognition of the other (a partir de una gestalt)
a (presented to the kid) gestalt. A given form present to the child functions as a reference, a point
of reference to construct one´s identity. This happens, because one has to find a way to have what
Hegel calls “How my own self feels” (the sensation of oneself: as linked to goce?) and to be able to
have an encounter with the sensation of oneself. I have to be able to (tener) notice myself as
having a beginning and an end [applications for those who snuff surveille the world?] To be able to
tell my right and left side, and I can only achieve this, this understanding, starting from the
reflection I detect in the Other (a partir del reflejo yo tengo en el otro; from the way that I find
myself in the (locus, in this site) other?) in the set of others that are spread out in my context (use
for targeted individuals I had written back then) The main big others being: mom, or, dad; mom
and “x” [variable for her and the n.o.f, and the set of family members] or dad and “x”.

As we shall see the phallus is totally unrelated to whether you are a man or a woman. It is
unrelated to your biological identity. When speaking about it (hablamos de funciones) we are
talking about functions. (here ends what was on page 12 front; what follows is on the back of page
12) And it is only when the function is understood as key one can think about Lacan as being not
guilty of the accusations made about him by feminists authors. If we do not clarify this then the
claim that he is phallogocentric will remain. When we understand (come to understand) what the
phallus is the idea that Lacan suffers from Logocentrism will vanish.
Introducing another element in what is understood as the function of the mirror. It does not limit
itself to the construction (encontrarnos) of identity. The function refers to having (finding) a
context. The context of the child populated by a series of objects that serve the function of
furnishing (tener la ilusion) an illusion to “x” that I am still in contact with the libidinal absolutism I
have lost: what Lacan calls object-a. The breast of the mother, a particular toy (that commanded
your attention? I write that now) The mantita from which the child does not, or, does not let go off
(Bruce´s case during childhood), because one´s contact is established with that partial object he
has the feeling of establishing contact with the totality they have lost.

One could think that object-a appears in infancy and later goes away (link to Freud´s fort da? I had
written then), but as we will see things in psychoanalytical theory just don´t disappear. Everything
suffers/goes through a process of aufhebung. Everything is preserved, changes, but remains
(cancellation, change, elevation; affirmation, negation, negation of negation), because object-a is
the place towards which every subject directs his/her gaze. We will not do anything other than
look at object-a towards that which promises us happiness (fulfillment) once for all? (here ends
what was on page 12 back what follows is on page 13 front)

Object-a by definition is empty (a gap, a void in signification) that means that when the child
establishes a relationship to the breast (forms a link, a bond) and through his mouth (suction
machine) has the feeling of being in contact with the totality that fulfills. He has the sensation that
he/she has established contact with it. He, or, she will later separate himself from it, and realize he
is no longer in contact with said totality.

There is a place in which Lacan says that “La droga”, hard drugs are a perfect object-a, because
when one uses heroin one has the feeling of being in contact with the totality [usual set, but apply
to drowsiness fragmentation, and the issue of infantile snuff], and this is why it functions as a very
powerful form of object-a, but every object-a “identifies itself” (“carries within itself a promise”) of
fulfillment of happiness. The revolution itself could function, or, is the object-a (given capitalist
exploitative fragmentation) also any commodity that I may desire might function like an object-a
(labor power as commodities). The object-a is found, it is apprehended in the moment in which
the subject – during infancy – takes the object (positivized particular object. I had written then) as
the absolute totality. Particular = universal totality (useful to inform t.i.´s I had written back then)
[metonymical process of displacement. Another thing I had written back then] x takes a number of
partial objects as, or functions as, an excuse to be in contact with that which “x” has lost, and this
is what object-a is, but as we will see later on object-a will evolve, and it will find itself at the
crossroads – a very important one – between (entre lo) the 3 registers: imaginary, symbolic, real.

The mirror stage which is the point we found in ourselves in presupposes a very quirksome,
queer? like dialectic, una dialectica muy curiosa (very curious dialectic), because if you use the
other (here ends what was written on page 13 front what follows is on the back of page 13) (si yo
tomo al otro) to build my own identity (construirme a mi mismo) then it follows that the other is
not understood in an objective way (the limits of cognition: I write today) (no veo de forma
objetiva al otro with flaws, limits etc. I had written back then. A gestalized Other I guess) I
understand him/her in an idealistic (romantic?) fashion: this is the figure of the father, or, the
mother except in situations which could be called, or, designate as perniciosas (dangerous to one´s
health, life or morality), but which are not wholly absent in the formation to the identity of the
child, do function as Ideal (ideal-ego? Into object-a I had written back then see tom meyer)
subjects if only, because they announce, establish and enforce the law. This will allow us to quickly
understand why we suffer from anxiety, because if one of the first principles of the formation of
my identity is that this ideal is by necessity ficticious that means that I build my identity (through)
dentro de una ficcion (through and remaining within a fiction).

And this means what I will call, besides all the issues that will arise later, is from the very beginning
a ficticious construction which means that – in the mirror stage something happens that is quite
surprising, and that Hegel, had he been alive, he would have had a heart attack [same set] that is,
at the foundational core of our identity what we find rooted at this point is fiction as such
(appearance as such), and this is why when we speak about identity, sexual identity, the identity of
gender, or, gender identity of which Lacan does not speak (I do not know if he means he does not
go into the specifics of issues relating to such that others have taken upon) [1:16:15min] (same
set)

When we speak of psychological identity we have to keep in mind that in psychoanalytical theory
identity is understood to be ficticious, but that fiction is not a fiction in the sense of being a void. It
is a fiction that produces (through its generative contradiction?) performative effects (organizing
behavior relation to the world, others etc. I had written back then) [here ends what was on the
back of page 13 what follows is on page 14]

Judith Butler happens to be very Lacanian (1:16:40min) even though she does not admit it
explicitly. When I say that it has performative effects I mean to say that yes, it is possible that it is
ficticious, but that does not stop it from being an identity. It doesn´t it from being the identity with
which I move around, relate to myself, or, other etc. That identity which allows others to recognize
me, and this means that we are in a type of double-bind at the foundation (pit? I had written back
then) itself of identity which has yet to turn itself (wholly) into what we will come to know as “the
identity”, but rather that which is there prior to the identity I build myself taking as a starting
point, a ficticious image, and this means that at the center of our ego (nuestro yo) a fissure erupts.
It is encountered. There is an hiancia (crack, hole, opening) una brecha. We encounter a type of
hole, void through which something escapes (algo se me escapa). If in the mirror stage what is
built, constructed, created is an identity founded upon a fiction then this means that (se va a
producir) this will produce a substantive contrast between what I need, and what I find, because
that which is needed from the start, and what I find is caught in that dialectic between that which
is what it is (lo que hay; lo que existe? Lo que acontece?) , and the fiction. That is Identity. This
clearly explains why anxiety arises (use for targeted individuals I had written back then), because
there never is what we could call a transition in a straight line from one point to another (a
frictionless passage)[here ends what was on page 14 front what follows is on page 14 back]

1:28:10min
The Mirror Stage: The fact of the mirror stage which is where the discussion let off. In Lacan´s
essay relating to the mirror stage he affirms something that looks somewhat strange, puzziling,
and that therefore is somewhat, or, something of an enigma, but that nevertheless can be
understood. After he talks about identity as well as its fictional character we understand that
something logical follows from it, and that is prior to such an identity there has to be a
fragmentation. It presupposes a fragmentation (use for T.I.´s Alfred McCoy on torture I had
written back then) otherwise it would be meaningless to speak of identity this is why Lacan says:
“The mirror stage´s function is to transition from the state of fragmentation, or, fragmentation
state to an orthopedic unity” [1:29:33min]

The idea of an orthopedic unity is very interesting, because it comes from what we were talking
about namely fiction, that is to say, identity is an identity at the register of the image, and which
will prepare all that relates to the imaginary register. And [same set] an identity – not detached
from the one based on the image, but an identity that refers to the body to the extent the body
acquires a quality of being cohesive (organized structured etc. Unity) that which we address as
cohesiveness is of an orthopedic nature, and it is important to stress this adjective (orthopedic) for
a particular reason, because that which is orthopedic is susceptible to be taken apart
(deconstructed I had written back then) due to its orthopedic nature. (here ends what was on the
back of page 14. What follows is on the front of page 15]

I add this point, because I am interested that you may understand the following fact: that which
we call identity, in order not to get confused, with respect to the views articulated by the Other (?)
philosophers, and other contemporary theoreticians of Lacan. It is a rather problematic identity,
that is to say, people like Derrida will speak of difference, and will say difference preceeds identity,
but bear in mind that Lacan is not saying something different. When he speaks of moving from a
state of fragmentation to an Orthopedic identity he is pointing out the great importance of the
instability of that identity. The mirror stage as an ego formation stage found in Ecrits [same set
180 flip. Wanted to resuscitate the guy anyway if they go all the way for three letters: and….] As
the formation of the ego in an era where Lacan would not distinguish between the ego, and what
is called in french “Le Je” (el yo), and as we will see it is fundamental that the distinction be made
so we may understand the concept of identity we are trying to elaborate.

If we concentrate, and sort of define the psychoanalytical narrative by the logic, or, process of how
a subject develops into a subject (from fragmentation into a subject of the signifier with an
unconscious. I believe that this is what he must mean) we have, by necessity, to elaborate
something that is of crucial importance: when Lacan talks about the Oedipus complex he talks
about (3 tiempos de edipo) 3 temporal stages of Oedipos the 3 stages refer to, or point to, 3
stages that represent the path that is traversed, travelled to reach this point the $ point in graph 1.
The social subject [I had written then: hence it drives perps to a point of no-bareness to a point of
regression of an anti-social variety, and tries to convince them later that this amounts to truly
being real men, and women etc (within the symbolic I had meant)] here ends what was on page 15
front, what follows will be on page 15 back.
Graph II: The Joke (1:33:56min) I will leave some room to write the graph he did (back of page 15)

I had a note on the right hand corner of the page: In Freud-Lacan: “clinical structures” it is
explained that there is no representation of the woman as signifier of true difference: antagonism
is their fulfillment, and non-division “in” the unconscious then? No, I think this is dealt with by
Zizek in his sexuation lectures, and his “For They Know Not What They Do” how feminine logic is
representative of working class.

A fact that is correlative to the mirror-stage is the fact of a child´s acquisition of language. The
beginning of the process when we use the word language with regards to Lacan´s theory:
psychoanalytic theory. One finds this to be a strange term (termino), word. In Lacan el language is
not reduced, or, conceptualized as the mans of communication, and that is why one must proceed
with caution. The very much commented upon phrase “The unconscious is structured like a
language” this phrase must not be read as nor does it say “The unconscious is a language”
(1:36:32min) I have to leave room for a small graph he needs to make a point.

Every metaphorical structure presupposes a comparison between two things that are similar, but
also have a difference, and if we could say that by language we understand it to mean this concept
of metaphor, or, language understood mainly through the concept of metaphor then we would be
forced to say the unconscious is not structured like a language, but it is nevertheless true that it is
similar to a language, and having once accepted the notion that it is similar to language we have to
then thematize (schematize) what is it that we mean by language. So, we may come to understand
what Lacan meant by such phrase. (here ends what was on the back of page 15 what follows will
be found on the front of page 16)

1:38:00min

Brief remarks on the Oedipus complex: As we have said whenever we talk about it we have to be
able to distinguish 3 stages:
In the first phase the child takes an object of desire at the same time as “x” becomes the object of
desire of the mother. They become that to which we had referred to before as the imaginary
phallus this starts from the intuition that it is the mother the one who has the phallus (commands
and delivers libidinal investment. I had written back then. Notice that it is an abstract relationship about positions, and
distribution of libidinal attention. Who will produce it, and to whom it will be (distributed) delivered interchange
(exchange) and the logic that governs this distributive exchange etc) the intutition also articulates the notion –
important for the concept of the imaginary phallus – that it is the mother that (dicta, determines)
establishes what the law [same set] (I had written back then: law already commands administering
modalities of expression). In this particular phase a number of operations are performed by the
child that allow him to protect himself from the metonymy of desire. Una especie de noria (being
a kind of heavy and repetitive work that leaves everything the same. In this case lacking. Notice
that this is not read as “we concentrate our efforts at being barren”, but rather as the sign of a
mockable victim with which you do not identify) which does not allow us to have a fixed point (I
had written back then: I am guessing desire always jumping metonymically), and stop us from
being in a position of discomfort. Always guessing what desire is etc (I had written back then to
refer to Baily´s book purchased in Barnes and Noble in 2011 while being tortured [same set])

The second stage: Corresponds with what Freud dealt in totem and taboo: “The Karamazovian
Father”, “The Law” or (el padre feroz: allusion to children´s tale while attemptin drowsiness
fragmentation [same set]) “Symbolic Law”, the uncompromising non-negotiable law. The father
prohibiting the incestual relationship between mother and (Asansi says) father [it should read
child: same set] This second stage is crucial, because it represents the moment in which the father
substitutes the mother. (here ends what was on page 16 front: what follows is on page 16 back)

He will further elaborate upon this point later on in case of any misunderstandings that may arise,
lose ends etc. (lacks him as the one that represents the university discourse, clockwise into the
master´s discourse then a◊$: incestual violence (victim = shock/fragmentation then they will
retroactively signify it with one of four i(a)´s from s1-s14)

He uses “but” [same set] But I will go ahead and make mention of a particular fact: this is the
moment in which the signifier will be acquired by the child en forma plena. In its fullest sense of
acquiring it. It signals the moment of transition when the child passes from unsing the word
“yoya”[same set] to designate everything from the dog [same set] to the mother, the father to
stand for the difference (a marcar la diferencia) [marca: señal (simbolo sera?) made by a person,
animal or thing to distinguish it from another, or, to denote calidad, or, pertenencia (of things
through time)] of who is: mom, dad, the dog etc [same set] The subject in which the moment
enters (ingresa) into the binary signifier (what Lacan calls the binary signifier). It is the moment
where we pss from the unary signifier to the binary signifier. He will talk about this evolution from
unary to binary signifier later on, but this transition- when accomplished – is when we find
ourselves with the second graph (I will leave some room for it below)
The Joke: It is called “The Joke”, because as for Freud´s “The joke and the unconscious2 as for
Lacan´s Seminar 5 the one on unconscious formations.

In the 1st graph we saw the contrast between the need to be expressed and its obligation of
passing through the code. The lines going in opposite directions: from left to right S---S´ to Δ--$
which goes from right to left. If one has to explain what has happened in the transition from Graph
I to Graph II you will be able to appreciate the following: The letter C in graph 1 has now been
transformed into letter (A) (Other, Autre), Once this happens Lacan ceases to talk about “The
Code”. Furthermore he exposes to the logic of irony (ironiza: he ironicizes) over and over again
(here ends what was on page 16 back. What follows is on page 17 front)

The notion of “code” which has been useful [same set: they do not like that very much yet all they do is want to throw
it in your face iff you lie to them about it: “No, I would really like to imitate what you are doing, and I am willing to deposit shame upon
you for having failed to be the Other I have always wanted to be which in this case is you, and you know this because of all that
Linguistics given by Jakobson. And [same set] which has been useful to explain the
surveillance data.]
subject, question, issue of retroactivity which as I have said before it is crucial to understand
Lacan´s thought. As we have said, in the transition to the second graph: Graph II the idea of the
Code disappears, and it is now named/called Other. If you looked at the translation of Ecrit by
Segovia [same set] there where Lacan writes an “A” you will find an “O” (graph of desire) for
“Otro”, “Other”, “Autre”, but as you will see when the C of code is transformed into “A” of Autre a
great many things will change, and will be modified. And [same set] if you look at Graph I you will
also find that where μ [same set] used to be now we find a small capitalized gamma letter (γ)
which if in graph I it stood for the message – it still remains the message – but now called the
signified of the Other. The Other´s signified. In a few moments I will explain why. Where – graph I
–we used to have a message now we have the message but named differently: signified of the
Other [1:4 what they must repress 4:2 something something3 min]

And [same set] – In graph II – we can now see two new terms beta and beta prime [same set] β,
and β´ [same set] If we keep in mind that on the right hand side of these graphs we find all that
relates to the subject, and the left side corresponds to the trajectory followed by the message, and
we can see that there is a moment at which they both cross each other, they both cross one
another. (here ends what was on page 17 front. What follows in on the back of page17)

I had a note written on top of the page: “Instancia sicoanal: Termino generic que designa una
estructura del aparato siquico” it is a note related to something I wrote below. The room is for a
graph he has on power point.
We will see that β, and β´ represents: 1st) Le je is represented by β, and β´ represents “le moi”. As
you may know le je and le moi are used in different linguistic contextual settings, but Lacan uses
them to designate two different instancias of the subject. As you may see we are unable to find in
this graph the unconscious. This graph has yet to express “The Unconscious”, but we can
nevertheless observe its beginnings in it. β represents le je and β´ represents the metonymical
object. I will explain why in a few moments.

The line that moves from delta to delta prime which he has yet to specify on the graph. He clarifies
that delta to delta prime is what used to be S------S´. Delta to Delta prime still remain what he calls
“La Historia Del Lenguaje” the temporal unfolding of language. Still remains the synchronicity, la
sincronia, but in this instance we add the diachronic dimension. The line that moves from left to
right will indicate two things: 1st The autonomy of the signifier. Its rules (I had written: make sure
to look at Ecrits Spanish and English to get a clearer picture of the graph) Its games, and the fact
that it has a history. A history that preceeds us (the subjects), and a history (as Marx would put it)
that awaits for us [same set: still unable to repress it. Yes, remember it had only been 20 to 30 years after they committed the
Holocaust. It had just happened in a sense. The immigrants that had arrived here might have had kids, if they survived, my parents´ age.
The victims of concentration camps having kids between those yrs being my parents age, but the American army was gonna train the
There are some notes on the margins: He jumps to “if” and does not specify
friends of God rather well]
the second thing: repression. How je disturbs said autonomy? After that I continue to write the
class.

If we pay attention to this structure we can see that what is really there, or, taking place is that
two terms have undergone a modification, and two more terms have been added to it, and given
that this is the case we can say: 1st) Why have the two terms undergone a modification? What is
the reason behind this passage from the concept of the code to the concept of “the Other”? Why
does this take place? (here ends what was on page 17 back. What follows is on the front of page
18)

What happens is that what changes is that the term designated “the code” is way too restrictive.
We say this because a code names a system of rules that allows us to build a number of messages
something that allows us to understand, codify and decodify (decodificar) [same set] unscramble,
interpret that which is being communicated.

Once we have (are able to work with) this rather restrictive use in place. It does not allow us to see
with sufficient clarity that the code represents – in reality – an Other with respect to the living
human creature. The name, or, the term Code remains excessively lukewarm [same set]. It is not
enough from a semantical point of view. It is not rich enough[same set] to allow us to understand
that when we speak of the signifier we speak of the Other, and once we begin using this term, the
term Other will begin to designate a plularity of referents (signifieds? I had written names of the
father? It is implicit in what he says: the generativity issue.) because the Other in effect is the code
as long as te sorbe (? I do not know what that means: absorb? Te sirva?) the signifier. I wrote after
that: I think he means to the extent that the signifier is able to alienate you in the Other as
language. The signifier as a group of signifiers as a code. The Other can be embodied in a subject.
As in the case of the mOther which as Baily points out it is the first Other [those are my notes, and
the same set] It is the first alterity that encounters the subject. The first alterity that the subject
finds. And [same set] as we have already pointed out the Other will designate the law. The Other
will designate the subject´s conflictive relation which that which comes from the outside
henceforth we can agree that all the features mentioned above are not made explicit when we use
the word “The Code”. They simply cannot be named using only that word. Hence the movement,
transformational? We move from the notions of the code to the notion of the Other (here ends
what was on the front of page 18 what follows should be found in the back of page 18)

This takes place, is transitory, because of the need Lacan´s thought (lacanian thought) of re-
signifying, and transforming in polysemic (a property of a word which allows it to present, show
different meanings), and this is something key in lacanian thought these terms he uses. He later
clarifies that the polisemic feature is not a polisemia whose objective is to enrich various possible
meanings. It is a polysemy whose meaning, or, purpose is to have the capacity to capture (abarcar)
a set of complex phenomena. From this objective is where the need for polysemia arises. A term
is more potent than another, because it is capable of including a much greater number of
processes. And [same set] that is why the “C” of code is replaced with the “A” for Autre. This
Other, as we shall see, has a series of meanings some of which I have just described.

Analyzing the term γ (gamma) this letter refers to the act of inscription. Just as we analyzed the
transformation of “C” to “A”. We also have to make the same kind of analysis concerning gamma.
When we speak of the message it constrains too much. It places excessive limits upon us given
what we have expressed, that the message, about it. Its purpose is to provide meaning. That the
signifier as it is found [same set] (permanece en el Otro) In the Other it does not have sense (what
he means is that it has yet to be retroactively signified, particularized, added determinations to it)
and if it does have meaning it is through (el forzamiento) the forcing mechanism of the dictionary
[same set] Where one can find the meaning of a word one does not understand, but everyone
knows that a word whose meaning we find in the dictionary can be used so that it yields a totally
different meaning. I can say “You are very attractive” in an ironic/sarcastic sense. A sarcastic sense
to mean the opposite[same set], and this usage is not explicitly stated in the dictionary (here ends
what was on the back of page 18, what follows is on the front of page 19)

That means that the signifier does not have –as it is found in its code state [same set] Other state
of the sig – the sense, meaning it could have when it becomes effective, actualized in use. It is for
these reasons when we talk of γ (gamma) Lacan widens the concept of the message. It no longer
relates to message as message, we are now dealing with the function of providing meaning. It is
about providing a signified, elaborating (computing) a signified, but with an exception since
meaning comes from the Other. So, that means that the signified is not what “I” as psychological
subject (a prohibited phrase in Lacan) give it, but rather the signified given by the Other. We refer
to that Other found in “A” [γ-----”A” on the graph: retroactive signification I belive] then the
meaning , the signified is not something of which we can say “it is my meaning. The meaning I give
to things” (I had written: a solipcism? Probably, but he is addressing the communal/social aspect of meaning, probably universal
capacity that people have for language so that is why you can assemble, disassemble, and improve (or not) different configurations of
the big other, but this also enables Freud´s “Wo es War, Sol ich werden” “Where that was there I shall be or the ego shall be” Lacan
It is rather the signified of the Other, because it comes from (authorized?
phrases this slightly differently.)
Sancionado desde el lugar (locus) of the Other?) the Other. It is the line that goes from “A” to “γ”
the line that forms a semi-circle.

So, why do we bother with modifying the letters above the way we have done? “C” for “A”, “M”
for “γ”? what do beta, and beta prime express (Que pintan beta y beta prime? [same set]) is the
expression he uses) What they express is the following: When I was going to tell that person “Me
encanta tu ternura” [same set for this one and what follows] once the passage is made from “A” to
“γ” in the path traversed to reach “A” (I guess this is from $ to “A”) something has had a hold of
me. Something triggers a malfunction [same set]. Something causes you not to say what you
wanted. Something gets in the way of the objective meaning, the meaning I want to give (here
ends what was on pg 19 front what follows is on page 19 back: he is supposed to be ironic I guess
[same set])

And [same set] this thing gets in the way it does not allow me to go from “A” to “γ” it/actually
forces me to shift course from beta to beta prime, that is, it takes me from that which [in a short
while I will name. I think he means from $ (s-bar)] has triggered a disruption which has led to the
production of a message, the producing a meaning I had no intention to produce

(no estaba previsto: it was not anticipated) that is to say while “ternura” [same set] was γ ;
“ternera” [same set] was beta prime. I say something I did not intend.

From the moment I say something I had no intention of saying. I (me pasa como) experience what
the girl in the “exorcist” experiences. An Other emerges when the failure manifests itself, but this
is not the Other of “A”(undetermined as empty?) it is another “Autre”. An “Autre” in me emerges
when this happens. Something emerges whose origins were not traceable back to “the program”
(what I had anticipated, Code etc)

If you pay attention to the relation between “ternera” and “ternura” [same set] we can conclude
that the nature of the relationship between the two is clearly metaphorical. And [same set] it is
here where two essential terms of Lacan emerge. Namely: metaphors and metonymy. It is obvious
that a poet does not cease to produce metaphors. Poetical metaphors are intentional. Attempts at
establishing a relationship between: 2 things or more. Comparing the “Blushing of a woman” with
the color of, and object of a rose. When it happens we can say that a substitution has taken place
between the lover´s blushing face, and a rose. A substitution since the face and rose are (here
ends what was on page 19 back. What follows is on pg 20 front) not the same thing clearly.

So, I use the characteristic color of the rose to designate something that is not a rose hence we get
the metaphor: to substitute a signified for another, but for Lacan a metaphor does not fit the
description of substitution just given for him a metaphor consists in substituting a signifier for
another signifier. To substitute “ternura” for “ternera” [same set] It is clear that were a signifier
such as ternura another signifier “ternera” has taken its place. What is the difference with the
poetic usage of metaphor? The poet has “intentionally” constructed the metaphor. Nevertheless
the psychological process used to substitute one word for another has yielded a metaphor
(“ternura” for “ternera”) but I have made it. If we want to say metaphor, because it reminds us of
rhetorical figures and, because we detect a level of complexity in the elaboration of the
substitution we can simply refer to the process not as metaphor, but one of substitution.

Substitution of the kind we are talking about can be done by the following 2 paths. 2 ways of
constructing them: either through analogy, that is to say, by the similarities found between the
two: “ternera” and “ternura” [same set] are phonetically similar, or, through relations of
contiguity, because one thing stands in close proximity to the Other. So, that instead of naming
one I name the Other that the latter is what we call metonymy. Freud used to call it displacement.
Metaphor he called condensation (Notes written on top of the page for this: A sig + he later says
Lacan made an inversion: calling it condensation: metaphor, calling displacement: metonymy.)
what is important to keep in mind is that these processes can take over us (nos invaden, nos
asaltan), and interfere. (here ends what was on page 20 front what follows is on page 20 back)

In our search for a message and correct meaning, a correct meaning and message, and if they do
take over it is because there is a process independent of my will that produces a short-circuit: that
which my intention was trying to say interrupting what I wanted to say. Notice that I pointed out
two things the will to want something, and the fact of saying it that is way the veroingtung (in
german) implies both these things (quiere decir). If we were to draw a diagram, and put the will to
want, and say something both of them would be separated there where the interference presents
itself.

We could say: To want that which I say (querer lo que quiero decir) to want what I want to say
where what I have actually said has interefered with what I wanted to say. I wanted to say “me
encanta tu ternura” this being my “wanting to say” (the interference are to believe they are God),
but once I say “Me encanta tu ternera” what I say creates a fissure, breaks what I wanted to say
with this, then, a difference is produced which is of great significance for Lacan, and whose
meaning is not the same as that found in linguistics: the difference between what I wanted to say,
and what I actually said (anticipation, and what takes place)

In the process of the clinic (seminar I guess, or some meeting) there is a moment in which Lacan
says: “The analyst must not understand” [I had written then: erase, rationalize fissures I guess] La
comprension – understanding –goes against interpretation. This saying does away, or, turns to
dust all hermeneutics, because if you understand you cannot interpret [the radically subjective
aspect of the symptom? Non-shareable, in a sense] (here ends what was on page 20 back. What
follows will be on page 21)

If the person at the receiving end of the message had understood what I meant (ternura for
example [same set]) she would have said “It is obvious that what you meant was tierna” had this
happened it would have been an example of understanding, but she was not going to be satisfied
– having heard such an expression – with just that. She acted as a Lacanian, and said “Ahhh, so,…
ternera huhh?” as you would understand it would have been difficult to let “ternera” go by. In this
sense what beta prime represents (for the time being) the possibility that something may interfere
when I want to say something, and if it does interfere, I then say something (a fragment) of what I
wanted to say, something different, I mean apologies, from what I wanted to say (this latter being
itself a demonstration of beta interference: self-referentially)

When you go to a Lacanian psychoanalyst you will see they remain quiet. Everyone agrees on this
point: “They do not say anything”, “The do not express emotional support”, what is the reason
behind this silence? 1st a psychologist situates – self-consciously – as a subject supposed to know.
Lacanians refuse this they do not. The lacanian analyst is not the subject that knows, and this is
what Lacan deals with in his Seminar of “The Ethics of Psychoanalysis” Lacanians position
themselves as the ones that listen to: the stuttering, interference/interruptions, the fissure of your
language. As we will later see (this is done so?) in order to articulate your desire (2:06:35min)
[here ends what was on page 21 front what follows is on page 21 back]

But the articulation of desire has to marcar la diferencia (make the difference? Point out the
difference) between understanding, and interpretation. The lacanian is not after understanding
he is not there to understand you. He would not be doing you a favor were he to do so. What he
will do is to interpret you. And [same set] this distinction perfectly made by Lacan in the first (or
one of the first) Seminars in the technical writings of Freud, and it is essential to understand the
process that we are dealing with at the moment.

The Lacanian analyst will not reassure you telling you “Do not worry I know you meant ´ternura´
not ´ternera´” they would actually try to interpret why the substitution has taken place. Why the
fissure happened. So, what the graph is trying to get at with the title of “The Joke” is that evidently
the mechanism of the joke reveals the mechanisms of condensation, and displacement. And [same
set] this very same process is of a great deal of help so we may understand in what ways they
signifiers as Code affect us. This process of “the joke” does not explain the why. Since, we have yet
to develop an argument as to why the beta trips you. What it does tell you is that beta does trip
you. And [same set] we all know that it trips us, because whomever substitutes one word for
another is saying to be committing1 a sexual failure (connecting significantly with another? Is what
I had written then. What he means is sexual difference as explained in his sexuation seminar)

That means that when we talk about beta we cannot take it lightly. It is important to reduce them
to simple mental lapses. When the lapses turn into “God visited (“they like it, like it”: they are
welcomed by victims. We will see if it wants to retroactivize to this me last night: and we had great
sex” [same set. Back then I had written: mentality of onto-q.m-self-willed, but saying “I am God,
and we had great sex”. Sure it became something crucial for their mental stability to “know they
are god when they demand infantile snuff]

1 = notes on the margin. Whomever is linguistically trapped also says, signigfies a sexual failure.
Signifies closing your trent coach, an allusion to flashing with words. It also signifies, as in the
example of the first pages, “dressing in white to get married”(that is what I wrote back then) [here
ends what was written on page 21 back what follows is on page 22 front]
We should start to worry. Deleuze spoke frequently of the schidzoid, but the real ones were
difficult to tolerate (he implies that he was too abstract, and not relating to the issue as concretely
as he could), and that, to me, was something that worried me. The problem with the
shidzophrenic is that they limit themselves in an excessive manner, and this brings forth anxiety
[same set] A great deal of it may result from it (the superegoic snuff violence to push him, or, all of
us into a state of rapeable infancy). So, “to play” with the term shidzo is fine as long as they form
part of a social pact, or, communicational pact. The mental illness is truly a problem.

Notice something: the position of anxiety of enunciation(?)-ϕ = -ϕ then why is the only thing that
will relief their anxiety snuff-incestual violence in to the point of seeking it, when they do not
getting from the victim, in “reminding” them of their brother, (the reminder is not to delegitimize
them, but rather to make them appear as all powerful vis-a-vi the victim) to me this implies that
displacement is already at work: It is the victim the source of the violent non-identity with what
they were anticipating to look like, even though they knew this in advance: that it was immoral
and illegitimate for them to do so, so once they return to this point again (that they were being
remarkably immoral to the point of committing crimes against humanity) then they shift agency
onto the victim “he delivered the blow”, but why will the anxiety not be relieved by simply
stopping and relating to the symbolic again? Why is their anxiety relieved by: infantile snuff? Is it a
very specific type of anxiety that only infantile snuff “will relief”?

Where am I leading to? The issue of beta it is not any phenomenon (linguistic) it is the moment in
which that fissure (hiancia: opening, crack, hole) of the conflict between the ficticious “yo” [ego]
and that which is fragmentary (which is as we said earlier that which alienates: identifies itself
(finds a way, a procedure, to do this) with the ego is suddenly revealed, and from this you get: the
lapsus, forgetfulness, is nothing more than a symptom (of small or great significance) of something
which at bottom turns out to be – the symptom – the tip of the iceberg of the issue or problem at
hand, and which corresponds to the failure of the subject as a subject. And [same set] that is why
graph II is important, because it is obviously explaining, describing (mas bien, better said?)
something that happens. I insist the graph does not indicate why beta trips you, makes you
stumble. It does not explain why beta trips you, and takes us to beta prime (= ternera [same set])
why the fall of the subject could be a serious manner. What kind of therapy does this demand (the
situation requires) when the subject falls (collapses: when they attempted to exploit paranoia to
its utmost by the nazi corporate state, and called you for that. Later asking you to get rid of
pictures that may prove the victim right that you were not lying or exaggerating)

What is the position of the analyst (the one they should subscribe to) [here ends what was on
page 22. What follows is on page 22 back] The one of which we spoke does not occupy the
position of the subject supposed to know. He or she will not be in the position of the master. How
does one at that moment formulate the (process, idea, steps to?) emancipation is something we
could take a look at when we give the reasons and the explanation as to why such a thing
happens. This will be looked at immediately after we look at the 3rd graph where the question of
the unconscious emerges.

Beta being a rupture between what you want to say (anticipation, and how it is connected to ego formation, lo que
acontece: so it is crucial if Bruce is able to speak fluidly, read plenty of books, have conversations about them, have girlfriends that have
not been murdered etc. It is not irrelevant, and why they are horrified at you being fluent in both languages [deprives them of the
infantile snuff, somewhat] remember the complaint against you: “This is not your identity. You have to “tone white” to speak English.
Do not think, or, speak in English. ´It is not even your language!*n´”) and
what you actually said: beta-prime. In the
case of the aunt what had been lost was “the want to say” (el querer decir) what is actually lost in
the punto de fijesa (alienated in S1 or ima-real-symbolic ego: this is what I had written then) that
allows the person to articulate a discourse with success or w/o it we ding ourselves in a
“graduacion”[same set] (sequential steps) from the problems of the lapsus where one wants to
say something, but actually says another, but he is able to correct himself, brings himself back to
that (initial?) moment, then recovers from it, and therefore, is once again able to communicate
what he wanted to say at the outset, and that subject in which the “want to say” disappears so
that what we have in this case is a case of pure beta & beta-prime.

The cut expressed in graph II (la escicion) is a cut that tries to (maguar) show a difference between
what we could call the production of a message with success, let us call it that, represented by γ.
(here ends what was on page 22 back. What follows is on page 23 front) And [same set] the
production of a message with success, but is not the message you intended on producing
(something was produced successfully, but it does not have to be what you intended), and that is
the process expressed (marcado) in beta-prime, and this means that in one way or another a
message with meaning (sense, sentido) has been produced. The meaningful message produced
does not articulate the meaning you want it to give it (here you notice a division, an hiancia, in the
subject once again)”ternura” instead of “ternera”, but what is rather expressed is the meaning
that comes from the Other (think of the exorcist example) this is the case as much for γ, as for β´.
If we pay attention we will see in the moment in which, or, when, there is a line that goes from β
to β´ what we find is that β´ goes upwards towards γ, but what do we mean by this? What it
means is that everything “confluye” (converges) in the syntagmatic line of the signifier. What we
are saying here is that one thing and the other converge on a single point. Understanding by this
that one would count as the successful message, and the other would be the erroneous message.

He talks about two formulas: for metaphor and metonymy.

Metaphor: f S´/s S ≡ S (+) s. 2nd formula for metaphor S/S * S´/x

S (1/s) Metonymy: F (S…..S´) S≡S (-) s

Here ends what was written on page 23 front what follows is on page 23 back.

Metonymy: F(S….S´) S≡S (-) s no extra signification added

Comments on formula which will be expanded later on: the two formulas are to be read in the
same way:
 f [ S´/s] S ≡ S (+) s or S/S * S´/x S (1/s)

F & S outside the parenthesis simply mean signifying function. This signifying function relates to
the collection of signifiers in a phrase and the meaning that is yielded as a product, but that
signifying function in the case of metonymy presents a substitution of an S for another signifier S´.
A sig is substituted for another sig with which sustains a relation of contiguity, and this has a result
– now looking at the right hand side of the formula - S ≡ S (+) s – a (un signo) sign (significado)
signified. A un signo significante significado. This sigfying sign is itself signified.

If we move over to the formula for metaphor f [ S´/s] = signifying function of the substitution
(produced by the substitution) of a signifier for another due to an existing relationship of analogy
between both. All that yields, and here is the key. A signifier with a plus of signified S ≡ S (+) s. A
plus (surplus) of signified means that because of the metaphor (en virtud de la metafora) we say
more than what is being said [here ends what was on the back of page 23. What follows is on the
front of page 24] (My comment: but what does this imply when they try to metaphoricalize or is it metonymycalized
from incestual violence (void, failure, privation) itself into “we are NFL types” etc? when all you get from snuffers are
these discourses this attempts at metonymicalizing or metaphorizing 38!+ modes of snuff incestual violence all of which
collapse as soon as you read 10 pages of what they actually do. They try to metonymicalize/metaphorize themselves
into the “God” sig, but how can you utter “God-phrases” or “NFL-DNA-phrases” based on infantile snuff?, even w/o the
“help” of infantile snuff)

That is to say we reach a field of meaning (un campo de sentido) a much wider field of meaning
which deals with the relation between pleasure, and jouissance as being different phenomena.
The idea of talking about these formulas is done so that you may keep in mind the notion of plus
de significado. This plus to which we refer will acquire a great deal of meaning.

Graph III: The unconscious. (See Ecrits) I will leave room for a graph he displays on his screen

s is what γ used to be to become signified of the ´Autre´ if it is called gamma is more as an

inscription than as a message. What the message never says is the signified of the Other. That is
why in order to “achieve” or include the gamma aspect we will use s & (O) or s(O).

It is just like graph I, but doubled, why has it been doubled? This 3rd graph says everything that
happens in graph I, and everything that happens happens in two different dimensions at two
different levels. The part that is doubled on top corresponds to the unconscious. The bottom part
corresponds to the dimension of consciousness. (here ends what was on page 24 front. What
happens is written on page 24 back)
Now we move to the upper section, and proceed to ask ourselves where does it come from? It is in
these section of our explanation of the graph where we will come to understand beta and beta-
prime that is to say the place of origin of the processes of lapsus, forgetfulness, “to constantly
adjust one´s pants obsessively”, to rectify what you have said, and replace it with what you truly
wanted to say: his aunts delusions etc. This graph ceases to be descriptive it still is of a topological
character it tries to position the elements of the psychic geography in their corresponding place
and psychic level, but it – graph III – belongs to the (orden genetico) structural-genetical level here
we will come to understand why thing that happen happen.

In order to understand it is preferable to return to graph I. I will leave some room for it.

When we were talking about the subject of pure need we said that when we have a need we have
to express it in the form of demand, and this implies that he/she have to ask for it, and therefore it
has to pass through the code, and when I produce the message the sanction/authorization follows,
but I have also said that the authorization/sanction is never completa, or, done in its entirety. In as
absolute there is always something that the code, and the message – using the terms of the first
graph – cannot subsumir (subsume) of the need, cannot incorporate something of the need is left
out. When we say that something falls we want to say that the step from the particular to the
universal. The need connected to the particularity of a body, orificios, of drives (pulsiones), of
instincts (here ends what was on the back of page 24, what follows is on the front of page 25)

From the moment it passes through the desfiladeros of the signifier, through the code, or, autre
presupposes the transit of that which is particular to that which is universal (2:31:17min) In the
contrast between the universal, and particular inevitably something is kept out, left out,
unassimilated. It has to remain outside, because the universal cannot subsume, or, absolutely
incorporate the particularity.

Now we have to move retroactively once again at the infantile stage to understand what happens
with regards to the subject of pure need, because if the need is that of the mOther, or, “x”´s need,
to the extent that it demands: the child cries ,or, screams, and gets your attention (at the very
least it gets this) (algo consigue) but along with that which “x” does find, what is more important is
that which he does not find, and that which “x” does not find is that x´s investment of libidinal
energy in the mother sustains itself continuously flowing towards, because of the efficacy of the
incest prohibition: I wrote a graph from Kant con Sade book

Das Ding of a◊S [clearly when you are surrounded by snuff

Incestual-exploitative-violence (38!+ modes of torture plus) there is only one way to read it: that is
a graph that represents the victims]
That is to say the need will see itself castrated (cuartada, frustrated) by the law in the moment in
which what is presented as essential, and vital for “x” it is denied, and denied by the Other
(2:33:22min) and now that we understand this we will understand why it was necessary to replace
Code for Autre.

We make a substitution, because said “Autre” is the mOther as pointed out by Baily [same set] the
1st Other is the mOther. [here ends what was written on page 25 front what follows is on page 25
back] When “x” begins to deliver, manifest, a modality of expressions (beyond characteristic of
child like expressions?) etc the mother will proceed to castrate him [time so that I am in a state of
drowsiness fragmentation for exploiting infantile vulnerability so they may modify themselves into the super- egoic-
enjoying gozon of infantile snuff, and proceed to say that they are not barren] He is referring to incestual
infantile expressions like showing his private parts [same set]. She will say “go somewhere else
and stop showing me that” [same set: notice how they use analysis, as they snuff torture for infantile snuff, timed
in such manner to generate an enjoyable lie about themselves: we are not incestual while downing infantile snuff. How
analysis is used as ideology: link to how they use Zizek as the master that does not exist in the same manner]

The father will also apply the Law. He will express it, apply it, and among other things he will deny
access to the mOther. This presupposes that there is a need –an essential need- that experiences,
or,goes through the process of being repressed. By repressed we mean nothing more than once
the attempt to demand affect from the mOther in a form that is considered incestual this demand
will be immediatly castrated (notice this is also abstract) severed from its roots (cortadas de las
raizes I am guessing he is saying), and this cut represents that aspect of need which is left out, falls
out [of the symbolic order; I had written, probably referring to his lamella concept/myth] of my
linguistic demand. A desire that will not (no va a llegar a buen termino) be satisfied. There is a
place where Lacan says “Desire = demand – need”. [See baily I had written: same set] If you
proceed to follow the steps of a simple mathematical operation such as subtraction, and you see
that need is subtracted from demand, and what yields desire, but desire is a desire of which one is
not conscious then it is the desire that is left out, it falls out. It falls out in the trajectory/path it
traverses from the desire for the mOther to the prohibition of incest [notice how their prohibition
is the opposite, to enable super-egoic incestuality at 38!+ levels] On that point, and as a function
of castration – of which we will speak later on – we can understand the appearance of (primary, I
think: I had written back then) that essential repression – repression being a very ambiguious term
as you shall see – which leads to the repression – please excuse the level of redundancy – of a
signifier, that is to say, that which is left out and falls out of need, and that which is left out, and
falls out of desire [if you look at the notes the same “Kubrick was will have been right” move was done setting the lecture in such
a way, perhaps the redundancy, so they may disassociate themselves as they get infantile snuff that they are attaking a woman killer.
These are the kind of demented low-lifes it is crucial for the nazi corporate state to surrounds us wiht] is
not a material
whether psychical or energetic in nature. What is left out is a signifier. (what was on the back of
page 25 is finished what will follow is on the front of page 26) that is to say what was truly left out
of that situation is that which we have in the graph s(o), and is read “signified of the Other”. It is
important to point out that it is an empty signifier. It is a signifier w/o sense (outside the relations
of sense) that is not a signifier accompanied by a signified. It is not language as it is usually
understood. It is not a term of a sign where a term of to which corresponds a term of linguistic
content where he have this relation in which every signifier a signified is assigned. Where we find
that a message corresponds to a “want a say” (a un querer decir). What occupies an unconscious
position (to the patient, person, what is outside their consciousness) is an empty signifier, and this
is the basic difference between the definition of the unconscious in Freud, and Lacan (below
definition I wrote: “notion” the word he uses)

This definition does not mean that the body disappears. The body is found in graph III where
“Autre” is. It is in the other articulated with desire. This is a very important thing to keep in mind.
What is situated in an unconscious position is not a sign (signo) if one restricts sign to the
definition of it being a signifier with its signified. What occupies said position is an empty signifier
in relation with Other signifiers. When Deleuze says that he prefers “The plane (in mathematical
terms: a flat two dimensional surface with a range and domain, a field I guess) of expression to the
plane of the signifier”, because the signifier is isolated, and the plane of expression implies a flow
(of sigs or signifieds?: I had written then) then we have to say that we cannot agree with that
statement. In Lacan a signifier is never isolated: what are the relations between signifiers?. There
are planes (fields) of expression, but without a plane (field) of content. [same set for planes].
Having set thing up this manner will allow us to understand very many things. If we refer the
unconscious to the issue of the prohibition of incest [the limitation of expression of the inhuman
core of human subjectivity],and also to the threat of castration (here ends what was on page 26
front what follows is on page 26 back)

I had some notes written on the top of the page: “Tesitura”: attitude or frame of mind. A set of
sounds that repeat each other with greater frequency in a piece of music.

We will understand that the subject encounters (se encuentra ante una tesitura) a particular
attitude he finds difficult to get away from (the compulsion to repeat in its most undetermined
form?), and the only way to get out of it is through the repression of a signifier which is what we
wrote as a signifier of the Other s(o). Notice that it is a rather strange thing. If you recall the sign as
elaborated by Lacan you can notice that S(A) on top of is the signifier of the signified s(o), and this
is absolutely terrifying. I have to insert a graph of desire here
We will expand upon this later (the transcendental illusion) but it is terrifying, because what it
points to is that the agency responsible for the enunciation is unconscious and the enunciated (the
statement) is what is (lo que pillo, becomes aware of) [same set] in the conscious dimension.

Question: What about the horrible aspect you mentioned?

Answer: The subject of the enunciation is unconscious (the position of enunciation, and to figure
out what it is), and what we call sense and signified is what we can see in the conscious dimension.
Regardless how much you assume that it was you the agency that crafted the expression to the
last non-existent completeness at the quantum level of its syntactical operations. When you send
a message you assume that you are responsible for that message. What graph III says is that to
believe such a thing is false. This difference between the enunciation, and enunciated to the
extent that places the signifier in the unconscious, and the signified in the realm of consciousness
shows why a demand can express, and sustain itself against my will. This explains why someone
could have a symptom regardless of (here ends what was on the back of page 26 what follows is
on the front of page 27) whether they like it, or, not. Otherwise it is impossible to explain it.

Question: On the issue of understanding and interpretation?

Answer: Seminar 1 Lacan talks about the difference between that which represents sense,
meaning, and that which represents not-sense (no sentido). Understanding as revealing a meaning
that stems from a symptom. If we have interpretation reduced to the latter then it is problematic.
We would have an individual uniting a signifier and a signified. This would not qualify as the
concept of interpretation with which we are dealing. The true role of interpretation is not to give
the patient meaning. What is done is to try to open a modality of articulation that affects directly
the desire of the unconscious, or, unconscious desire. A desire of the “Autre”. The latter does not
qualify as giving meaning (meaning as it relates to i(a) connected to enjoyment in signification, the
the issue of the absence of a meta-language. The non-all of the generative i(a) set how does one
manages for the patient to encounter it? A possible way to look at it.)

In a lot of instances – in the Clinton setting – to make use of meaning becomes inevitable even
though that may not be the primary objective [same set: it literally, more violenty than usual used
it in that way]. There are cases – as in that of screber: judge that suffered from psychosis (clearly
the victims not those who authorize any of this) – in which the restitution – restitution of a master
signifier whose objective is to organize a number of uncoordinated signifying chains (cadenas
significantes que van locas [same set]) is rather important, but clearly that does not amount to
giving meaning.

Question: Difference between identity (which Lacan never uses) to identifications which Lacan
does use (something similar is in the NEL book I purchased although they do not seem to be as
severe in their prohibition of the identity concept.) here ends what was on page 27 front what
follows is on the back of page 27.

Answer: In Lacanian term the difference is a difference that (marca) [same set given the mistakes
on the notes] displays a cause of an effect. The effect produced by the process of identification is
what is known as identity. When we talk about Butler being a Lacanian w/o knowing it (saying it)
we do so, because when she deals with the problem of the law she conceptualizes the law as the
master signifier, or, signified, and when she talks about the possibility of revolution she says that
revolutionary movements only make sense within the context of the Law. As an auto-reflexive
movement of the law with itself (self-reflexive) [becoming itself the object of reflection, and in
doing so, in this torsion towards itself, as happens with humans and introspection, it might
encounter its limit, but perhaps not as awareness, but some failure or something] given than in
one of Butler´s first manifestos you find a denial of the body. A denial which will not be as radical
in her later works [same set] due to a number of critiques with regards to said position. We could
say that it is, because of her dealing with the concept matter (takes apart: desmenuza) in “bodies
that matter” where she is forced to recognize a form of materiality. I would say that even at that
moment she finds herself in un Lacanianismo mayo (major lacanian themes?), because what can
be clearly understood is that in Lacan, the dimension of the body, of the orifices, bodily holes
(agugeros: including pores I am guessing) is never absent as we have seen in the graph called “The
graph of desire”

Question: About Butler´s claim about the non-existance of the body

Answer: I was being hyperbolic “there is no such thing as the body”. She tried to erase the body as
a given (corporality as a given: as an element of nature) even though the Law itself presupposes a
body, and that is why it is a problem to acknowledge the Law and dismiss the body. The law as a
performative effect produces what she calls a surface. A surface of body en function del fin (of the
law) [a body as an output of the independent variable of what the law will: sever, reorganize, re-assemble, but the law
acts on the inhuman core of human subjectivity which is part of what is understood as body, that is where the law must
be effective, so it opens an interesting discussion as to how to define this unsignifiable, that which resists symbolization
as body, if it is not effective there then there is no body or law within the symbolic right? which will retroactively
produce types of affects after the introduction of the law: this is the interesting part. The issue of death drive which he
will say Lacan took from Klein. Could one say that the definition of the body, for purposes of analytical research, is
narrowed down to “what is death drive”?] the iterativity of the norm (here ends what was on page 27
back what follows is on the front of page 28) ends up constituting a series of gender effects (a
body upon which gender effects have been produce, and is able to articulate reasons and
theorems of it?) she is motivated by something completely opposed to that which motivates
Lacan. For her when the body is judged from the point of gender when the feminine of masculine
duality is projected onto the body we understand that the binarism is found in both fields (men or
women I think: I had written) and this is in stark opposition to Lacan, and clearly Lacan will adopt a
particular posture with respect to this very difference. Here ends section one of four.

Section 2/4, because they were interfering with it in order to burn more material that will not
contribute to the infantilization of the victims they want to snuff brutalize in front of their parents
–regardless of the heavy presence of the algorithm – this section starts in page 54 of my notes. On
top of the paged I had changed it to 2/3 “It was being blocked” I had written.

…..If what I want to say represents a signifying chain what I do end up saying (lo que acontece,
what takes place in this plane/register) represents (a different one: I had written) another
signifying chain. He proceeds to refer to the third graph for which I will leave some room (I have a
note that reads: page 24 notes) [Lacan´s algorithm S/s]

In order to make a first approximation of Lacan (no bastaria con llegar a este grafo) the best
approach (also found in sublime object of ideology) is to use these sets of graphs showing you how
the final graph is constructed/articulated and why is it that it takes this final shape. So, we will
move from graph I to graph IV, and the development of the consequences (what follows) from
said graph would provides us with a good of information. And [same set] it is here – the upper
portion of the graph – where we can see a representation of the unconscious, and having reached
a representation of the unconscious we see ourselves in an obligation of speaking about the
unconscious. If graph I allows us to explain the formation of the subject it tells us the study of how
a subject of pure need ends up becoming a barred subject. This third graph, this way of dividing
(Asansi´s) the graph into 3 graphs is not something of Lacan´s own making. (here ends what was
on page 54 front what follows is on page 54 back)

They are Asansi´s divisions in order to (enjoy: I was being tortured and distracted while writing this
and thinking how they wanted me to enjoy a 180° flip accusation of Nazism) explain the evolution
of the graph. What I (Asansi) am presenting can be deduced from Lacan´s elaboration of his own
graph in Ecrit.

He arreanged them in said order to see what happens in beta, and beta prime. To explain a range
of phenomena from: “I am an omnipotent warrior God” to a mental lapsus “ternera for ternura”
[same set] or why if, when we try to study, we feel uncomfortable if something in our desk is out
of order. We all have those moments where we are really (asymmetrically) bothered by small
things like that. Example, the latter types of neurotic acts. The graph with the representation of
the upper part of the functioning of the unconscious tells us why things happen the way they do.
“A genetic model” (check Chomsky´s genetic or minimalist models; I had written at the time)

It was important for us to understand what appears in graph one as the sanction (authorization:
approval or disapproval; I had written then, truth values implied I write now.) of the Other, and
what is left out of it (lamella like? I had written then: death drive-vi-ish?) (5:23min) because
through it (the sanction) we understand what falls out when the particular is embodied – what is
my particular necessity – as need Δ of body, of drive (pulsion) which is truly mine, and no one
else´s so we may describe the kingdom of subjectivity, and pure intimacy del inconciente. Below
there is what he said, but in Spanish. I will skip it. (this ends what was on page 54 back, what
follows is on page 55 front)

Right at the moment at which “Δ” in its particular, singular need passes through the universality of
the Code it stops from being intimate (shareable with others in language) as a result of this friction
between them the singular need, and the universal code something falls off, is left out, and if we
view it from the level of the synchronic register, that is if we formulate it (de cara a: si lo
planteamos de cara a la teoria de Lacan etc) or interpret it through the position of the $ subject
we are not going to understand it very well. “We could say: If something hits me, and I utter “This
hurts a lot” this phrase does not reveal how (intimately) I am suffering, and as a result of this I
experience a degree of impotence. (violence and anxiety. Another reference as it relates to the
infantilization of victims to brutalize them out of existence.)

Ex.2: When you go to the emergency room asking for infantile snuff after the victims you were
brutalizing, one of them, threw out a set of audio-visuals into the garbage, because his brutalized
parents, under death threats, were forced to shill for them to their son, and you get this horrible
abdominal/stomach pain, and they ask (charitizing) “Does it hurt a lot”? and you answer “yes!”,
even though the linguistic utterance is understood it does not fully communicate, tranmitt in its
totality, the agony, (that not only do they want you to deposit in their security cameras in front of their parents) of how
much it hurts [same set: They made Asansi throw a fit about it after I did it. They also made him
wear a white shirt featuring a punk rocker strapped with two guns being all bad-ass and shit, but if
it proves too delegitimizing then they want to exploit the verso book, probably because I bought it
in the states, and there is some algorimized shit in it. To see if the work of people I like may allow
them to get into that Borromean know organized: uni-discourse clockwise master´s discourse to
get some snuff out of it. They can snuff for yrs w/o a problem though. A favorite of theirs “the
emergency room” it is also in that book written by that genius of theirs “Consider the lobster(s)”:
Look! “attack the Nazis” *n] (6:43min) There is something that you cannot communicate in the
universal of the signifier (universal understood and used by ATT I had written back then. I do not know what ATT means. Zizek
refers to the antagonism itself as the universal so there are some differences here) It was important to retroactivize
ourselves (retrotraerce) to the formation of the subject, that is to say, the problem of the child.

So, we have a good understanding as to why there is such a thing as the unconscious, because this
is truly related to the renunciation of that object – the mOther- and as such an object represents
that which is (irrenunciable) unrejectable. If we think if renouncing that which is unrenouncible we
will understand why the incest prohibition works as the (element desencadenante: the element
that triggers a chain reaction) basic element (triggering the unfolding) that generates the
unconscious, because that prohibition (hace que la pulsion basica) causes, the basic drive of “x” in
relation to the mOther, it to be a necessarily repressed drive. (7:49min) [what was on the front of
page 55 has finished, what follows is on the back of page 55]

The latter does not presuppose as does other analysts as Reich, Winnicott, some kind of repressed
psychic material. It does suppose (la instalacion en el inconciente) introduction into the
unconscious of an empty signifier (no signified of “I want the mOther”) that is to say of a signifier
that is not under a relation with any signified (Is this what happens when a signifier is repressed? It is decoupled from
the signified? I had written then: from what I have seen there seems to be two movements: an unsignifiable trauma for which a
signifying structure is recalled to “fissure” the gap of this real, so there is a really intense moment of non-identity between the two, and
a trauma in which a signifier itself is repressed heading towards some real? Is it the same movement? That is to say repression occurs, a
sig is decoupled from its signified (negation) and then it is used to “signify” this real as a negation of negation?) , and that it be an
empty signifier (Y que sea un significante vacio, solamente podemos decirlo cuando decimos un significante vacio es el horror:
you can experience the horror, anxiety, and panic of relating to an empty signifier, and the one standing next to you for this to happen
∞) [I had written: I do not know what he aims at. I think he means that such a sig is outside relations of sense, connecting you to
others, a community , shareability, hence the anxiety and horror]

An empty signifier does not mean anything, but as long as it does not say anything it does not
worry us. So, why care?, but that is not the problem. The issue is not so much that it is empty, but
that it does not generate effects. What is problematic about it is that from a place of illogicality it
can produce effects, and this is why it has the importance that is does. What I want to say is, so
that we may all be able to understand why the function of la sanction (the authorization, sanction,
denial/approval) of the code (provoca al inconciente) [the code in its repressing of the signifier
captacity? I had written back then since he said it authorized, denied, etc] triggers the unconscious
(its emergence) [9:16min] We have to understand two things: 1st what I have said before of
embodding the particular in the Universal (in an absolute sense) is literally impossible 2nd this fact
of impossibility is, or, has to be refered back to that situation in which the subject will become (un
sujeto asociado) a subject in social relations that stem from language: that is to say the moment of
renunciation of the libidinal relation with the mOther – which- is- a kind of terror inducing
renunciation (to break with that level of attention, security, importance) It is the renunciation that
gives birth to the unconscious (9:55min) An inauguration that – the modality of renunciation
leading to the subject sexuation [structure of obtaining goce: neurotic: hysterical, obsessive, perverse, psychotic. Hence the
push towards snuffing infants approximating psychosis, and the burning of books, blocking printing of material, but facilitating that
audio-visual garbage etc: Today they once again, blocked the cable to charatize themselves anxiety through Bruce and pretend the
universe needs what they do through said exploitation] here ends what was on page 55 back what follows is on
page 56 front.

What we are interested in is in formulating the following. The unconscious begins (it arrives at the
moment, is inaugurated) from the starting point of the (instanciacion) empty/repressed signifier
which is the reason why Lacan writes here (on the graph 1) “S” in capital letters. (Yo decia
significante del otro) I had said signifier of the of the Other. I had written he must mean signified
of the Other nad on the other side s(O) signified of the Other, and we see a line that goes from left
to right (I am guessing) I have to leave room for a graph

He finds something about the graph horrifying, and that something is something with which he
finished the first section: the enunciation is unconscious (associated with the signifier? I had written then. No it
has to do with the transcendental illusion, and the fundamental fantasy as sites in signification s(O), but outside the conscious register
, and the enunciated s(o) on the conscious register you have to check with section
of every person)
one, but maybe the enunciation is at Δ & enunciated at $. Maybe. Why is this so terrible?

When in linguistics a difference is made between enunciation and enunciated what they try to say
– I also say this [I had written on the side: “L” would say his linguistics was that of the linguistics of the hysteric: linguistico-
hysterics. This is what I had seen in a documentary of his] So, you may see to what extent Lacan puts linguistics
through the meat grinder (a quote I first found in the book by lepin “Lacan Today” by the Other
press) he knew of the linguistica histerica the latter are not linguistics, but why is it the case that
the latter does not count as such? There is not a theory out there that does not refer, situate, the
difference between enunciation, and enunciated to the same conscious register. As happening in
the same conscious register. The person who takes responsibility (asume el discurso) for discourse
and what I say pay attention in the “formula” phrase “I want to see” (here ends what was written
on the front of page 56, what follows is on the back of page 56)

The distinction between enunciated, and enunciation means that (yo asumo) I take responsibility
for the “I want…”, and I also express the 2nd position “to say” with 1&2 “I as a subject (asumo,
identify with the) will a discourse” and bring forth the enunciation and (en la enunciacion digo un
enunciado) in the enunciation I say an enunciation I say something. I make explicit (manifiesto) a
signified. It is for this reason why in semiotics a distinction is made between subject of the
enunciation, and subject of the enunciated (13:34min) who speaks and what (that what) speaks
(13:40min) (quien dice y lo que dice) let us move onto the second step.

In linguistics the enunciation – according to Jakobson – which Lacan used as a foundation for his
work: the enunciation is grammatically represented in the phrase by an empty subject, because
the term “yo” in a phrase as a pronoun (como tal pronombre no designa nada) [same set] does not
designate anything it does not mean anything. It is empty (to impersonal?) It is known as the
shifter, that is to say in the enunciation when someone speaks… For example: when I speak here in
front of you everyone could say “Asansi is talking non-sense” and this will be attributed to me, but
when I read a novel things begin to change. So, when I read it I could think “10 años despues
frente al peloton de fusilamiento” [same set: aiming for the same thing. Garcia fucked up they add
“where God, knowing that standards meant nothing, was beginning to shoot-charitize towards
himself what it does not lack” (100yrs of solitude)] that “yo” that says what is being said in the in
the sentence has been written by Garcia Marquez (and interpreted by….God. In the only way that
it must), but it is not Garcia Marquez at a strictly grammatical level what we call “Yo” and we call
“you” are nothing, but instancias gramaticales vacias. It is not the same thing. (here ends what was
on the back of page 56. What follows is on the front of page 57)

(Quien enuncia) who enunciates that the act of enunciation, and it is not the same thing (la
enunciacion) the enunciation, and the enunciated. Lacan takes the emptiness of the pronoun (al
pie de la letra) literally and after having done so proceeds to invert it (which could be exploited for
purposes of backwards speech; I had written then) he says “Y tan vacio que esta” (and it is
remarkably empty! With a level of excitement that he wants to communicate to the audience) It is
empty, only because (or iff) the enunciation belongs to the conscious register, and this is not good
news for Lacan. Yet, it is an empty “yo” it is what he (designa, designates as) calls “je”, “le je”. The
enunciation is in charge of the unconscious – “le je”- well, he has read linguistics and turned it
around (as in Marx and Hegel; I had written) he has (ubicado) positioned the enunciation in the
unconscious, and what that means is that the responsibility of what we say is not ours.This is the
problem that emerges as the result of that inversion that the responsibility of what we say cannot
be traced back to us. The responsibility for it ceases to be ours. You could say “How is that the
case?”

For ex: When I says something like “I do not feel like doing this” I ask you: who is saying it? is it not
the case that is me? And [same set: automatically done] Lacan says: This “i” in i(a) represents the
result of the enunciation´s effect – inhabiting an unconscious position – (en una posicion
inconciente) – on the (plano de la conciencia) register of consciousness (after retroactive
signification finishes ? it is beyond the limit, umbral?, of the enabled by signification
consciousness?) One of the effects is that the ego [yo sicologico] –what we call “le moi” – believes
– the ego believes – that it is truly in command of what it says (sidenote: Eidelsteing talks about
the modern ego, and how it experiences guilt for believing itself to be responsible for the
construction of perturbing, and incestual dreams etc. How strange that it thinks that its powers go
that far. To this you may add i(a)nth for snuff careers) (que el ego crea que el asume la
responsabilidad de lo que dice) that is to say it is not that in the register of consciousness one does
not, and cannot (asumir) take responsibility what we are saying is that it emerges from (here ends
what was written on page 57 front what follows is written on the back of page 57)

(tiene el punto de partida en su propia voluntad) its own will, it has to be this way, otherwise we
would never see ourselves in the position of clearing up what we meant: “I meant to say….”
(19:31min), but however much one may have to assume responsibility – in the field of
consciousness for that which we say (identify with? Construct our indentity through?) and do
(nuestro punto de apoyo en el le moi) we always have to do it with the le-moi construction as our
support (kinda center of gravity: so once again you can tell what their purpose is for victims.) The
enunciation (“la verdavera” enunciacion) “the real” enunciation is found (departs from?) the
unconscious. This is the abyss towards which Lacan pushes us. The abyss consists in realizing that
it is not you who speaks, but rather (Eso que habla) that ´that´(undetermined, inhuman,
unshareable) speaks, “El ca parla” (ca pronounced za). And “eso” [same set] that speaks is what
explains our mental lapsuses, that which gets in the way of understanding one another, that one
may say something w/o really wanting to have said it, and the other interprets it in the wrong way
[check with their bragging about the algorithm] in a way that (charatizes) enfuriates him etc.

The chain of mistakes that is produced (a partir de) from the point of departure that we know as
speech, and the responsibility of which falls upon the unconscious is (es brutal) of great
importance (is violently shattering?) it is earthshaking, because this presupposes something that
we will mention very quickly: this presupposes that a (an inhuman, death drive) demand can be
sustained independent of our will. (21:50min) The person suffering from having to adjust his pants
500 times is demanding something, but that demand is sustained independent from his own will.
He really would not want to have to do it. It is not something he selects out of a set of things he
would like to do. When I say, as in the case above, that a demand is sustained I am also saying that
we can, in this case, literally see a symptom: that a symptom reveals itself. (here ends what was on
the back of page 57. What follows is on the front of page 58) And [same set] no one sustains that
demand. Who sustains that discourse? Who sustains the discourse of my slips of tongue, lapsus
(their sig chains I had written then?) “Ego” will not answer only because you ask him to stop the
demand (the unconscious formation after the ego formation through identification with the sig
has taken place). He could ask his teacher, but the teacher would reply he did not know why he
did it.

If it is true that the demand sustains itself regardless of my will then you could ask: well, who stops
it then? This presupposes that in the terrain of (accion social) social interaction there are: acts,
crimes, fechorias, burglaries, envelops (laughter) [this is an allusion to Zizek´s “Conversations with Zizek. Trying to see
if by using him they make appear a master that was never there. The one who will convince the victim that their existence is of no
worth, that they are the one´s who are incestual, anti-semitic, everything they are committed to and censor the victim through
there is also
drowsiness fragmentation from reading in his diary. Do away with lived equality, at least among each other: 5 of us]
“getting caught” [same set], and we will obviously say that all of the above implies responsibility
(demand) and as we say “let onto-quantum-mechanically-self-willed-snuffer-of-infantile-
experiences –of –death-in-front-of-their-parents-for-years” go to prison. Now, we would be
making a mistake were we to think that all the things (toda esa cadena) mentioned above of
(crimes) have their origin in the ego that carried it out, because just as well I can (actuar en circulo)
repeat certain acts, being able to do something that I should not do I know that if I act in a
particular way that will affect me in a negative way that I am aware of this with this array of
experience to back it up, but nevertheless I do it again [the undetermined compulsion to repeat
rocketing itself up on its way to, V, and form that sinous line which he will proceed to allow
gravity, now in God-identity with it, to help it descent into the super-egoic- goce that will bring
satisfaction in the determinations, and specifications of turning psychoanalysis into a fantasy
screen that enables the unloading of an unwelcomed, unsolicited, unwanted, not requested, load
of snuff onto the hit-them-from-behind (unconscious: ruffis)-the-vatican-says-they-always-win-
that-way faces of students in the following] Let us say that I am neurotic (de la leche [same set]) ,
and I am aware that when I have a huge ego, and being to micro-manage everyone at work, and
keep on doing it I know that it does affect me in a negative way, but I keep on doing it. It is here
that you can tell why the phrase “The demand sustains (al margen de nustra voluntad [same set])
itself beyond our will (beyond the margin, line, that delineates where my ego ends and my
unconsciousness begins). It means that the demand has as its starting point – pointing at the graph
– (here ends what was on page 58 front what follows is found on the back of page 58)

Now, why do we say demand? We can agree that what we called “Δ” need on graph I Lacan (lo
ubica en dos puntos distintos) locates them on the graph on two different points (found on the
upper and lower part of the graph not shown on the video) why is one of them up there, and the
other one down here?, because everything that happens in the lower graph – Register of
consciousness happens in the upper part of the graph. Unconscious in a negativized way. This is
why Lacan places them on the top & bottom: that is to say there is a need of which I am conscious.
There is a sexual need of which I am conscious [27:09min] and another need of which I am not
conscious.(its origins at least are unconscious)

Ex: having sex [same set] satisfied (snuff-seca brings dogs out so they can get their mind hit from
behind to show them what is what): conscious need. Then go outside to a public park, and, having
thought it carefully before banging I decide to wear a trent coat that day. So, he gets done with
the sex “he was interested in” goes to a public park, and flashes a girl, or, someone else and keeps
at it until he is done. This is done after being satisfied sexually. That happened, because there was
a need there is something of a need that is not present in the conscious register (the flashing
might be refered to $◊D; I had written then [another tranpolin]) whomever flashes (muy
posiblemente) in all likelihood does not understand why. Why is it that such a demand is
sustained, and what sustains it. You cannot just simply ask him “What are you doing?” an expect
some kind of answer. He could find out, but he really does not know where it comes from. He does
not know it, because it is localized (its locus is) on the upper part of the graph, because it is to be
found in $◊D. He knows what he finds attractive – flashing to brutalized victims of crimes against
humanity 24/7 38!+ modes of snuff torture for recordable infantile experiences of death - , but he
does not know what need is being addressed. (He only knows that he needs an industry of surveillance, 6 billion
victims, a genocidal army, plenty of hard currency to waste in an optimal neoliberal manner, vassal labor-power, and an industry
devoted to “dissecting artistically” and representing on the big screen what he does ∞ again.)

Because the need (en tanto pulsion [same set]) to the extent of being a drive is found in the
unconscious upper register. (here ends what was on page 58 back. What follows is on page 5-sexy-
9 front)

If we say that the enunciation belongs to the unconscious. If we say the needs belongs to the
unconscious we can clearly ask why is this the case? I find myself with the same problems we
encountered in graph 2 beta, and beta prime explain certain things (rules of metaphor, and
metonymy adding, and displacing words; I had written then) I could explain the mechanisms of
things like the slips of tongue, but it would not be able to explain why these fissures in language
happen at all. If the processes of slippage “catch us” (unawares) it is because they are “here”
(points to the graph) they come from here. It is that process that leads to s(O) to put it in simply
vulgar terms that leads to the message.

It is graph III that opens pandora´s box [same set] it is here where things are explained. It is on this
graphs where we will be (colocando y desconlocando) putting together and taking apart certain
elements as we continue to move on as this paradoxical heuristic “method” implies. Graph III looks
like this

1st) Lacan writes “Autre” articulated with “d” (there is some level of dialectical co-determination
between the two concepts: there is not “d” without an Other that is sanctioning ect) then he asks:
Why does Autre establishes a relationship with “d”? [to indicate unconscious´s Other´s desire? I
had written then] If desire = need – demand, and if we remember that desire, and desire of the
mOther, and for her as well keeping in mind that this desire has to be interpreted in genetivo
subjetivo and genetivo objetivo (32:51min) genitive (subjetivo) refers to possessive The snuffer´s
snuff material, the snuff career´s propaganda project, genitive objective refers to the victim being
the object of some action John(s) are victims of snuffers (genitivo objetivo). The one who desires is
the mOther, and the who desires is also myself. D.o.M where the child feels unsure as to his
position: is he the subject or object? (33:07min), and we have to say that “x” it both things at the
same time: “I desire the mOther, and the mOther desires me, or, better put: “I want the mother to
desire me” In that paradox we will find the principal unconscious (here ends what was on page 5-
sexy-9 front what follows is on the back of it)
Above this graph the following notes: Is the path B-D´´ indicative that “d” cannot be or is
articulated through $◊D due to the Other lacking, or, grounded in Jouissance ? A-E = the why of a
slip.

formation of which we speak. Hence it is not a simple/trivial desire (cualquier deseo) desire, the
one (desire), that must embody itself in a demand is this essential desire (33:40min) that is why if
the sig that is in (pocision inconciente) the repressed signifier (is lodged within the unconscious)
originates from what has been left-off, the remainder, the lamella example, at the moment the
particular tries to embody itself in the universal (the unshareable, radically inhuman core of
human subjectivity; which is universal for all humans) of the code then we can understand why
desire = need – demand, because (ante me necesidad particular, potente y imperativa) once I am
confronted with my very particular, potent and imperative need I have no other option than to
express it through a demand, I have to ask for it [same set; gvsb; murder of 12 girls, within the
context of “tucked in infancy” (type of victims you were) and infants as “suckers”], and if what I
get with my demand is equal with what I do not get (es igual a lo que no obtengo) since it is the
same whether I demand it or not, because I will not get it anyways (since it is impossible to obtain
it given what it is – see above features) so even if you ask for it [same set] you will not get it. The
unconscious signifier {(S(O)} occupies an unconscious position is the one that articulates desire
(34:54min)

He talks about how the desire of the Other (B through E) is articulated by B through E until it
reaches s(A); β – β´, but just as in graph one where we had to look for the sanction (judgment´s
truth value, plus good or bad, acceptable, or, not valid) of the Other we will say that in the
unconscious esto (desire) also looks for the judgement of the Other´s code. It is symmetrical (here
ends what was on page 5-sexy-9 back [notice “tucked-in” and they control it on real time so these
effects are produced] what follows is on page 60 front.

And [same set] what does that symmetry signify (que nos indica: what does it point to? What is it
indicating?) what is it that it points towards? That the relationship that will take place (relacion
que se va a producir: the relation that will emerge out of this) between the signifier and the
“Autre” and the Other (articulado con, generated alongside with, expressed through?) as it
manifests along with, and through desire is that of a vicious circle, that is to say it is a circle, and
according to how it rotates, slower or faster, it (forma un tipo de pulsion otra) generates a kind of
drive of the Other (it looks more like another type of drive, an other type of drive) We will later
see when the Other is articulated with desire we will find the matheme of drive, but here we will
concentrate on why the fundamental nucleus of need is found at the level of the unconscious
register.

It is found (what is left out by the code) in the register of the unconscious, because the Autre is
unable to sancionar (either stamp out, or, satisfy) my need. Since it is unable to completely
sanction my need I insist on said need over and over again as a consistent demand, and said
insistence (tiene que ver con) is related to the phenomenon of insistence: which is to say, those
who enjoy exhibitionism will not just do it one time. This is also why the person who adjusts his
pants over and over again will not simply do it one time (demand in, or, symptom demand in
perversion & obsessive neurosis). This is also why the person who obsessively washes his hands
will also not simply do it one time [same set]. What we find here is the circle we were talking
about. It is what is found in the upper side of the graph (37:34min) The person who washes his
hands obsessively does not know the origins of that demand [same set] he is unconscious as to its
source. It is a demand sustained independently of his will. This is what could be said to be the
horrible part (inhuman core) of the discovery of the unconscious. The (no lugar de sujeto) non-
place from which the subject originates (37:52min) here ends what was on page 60 front, what
follows is on page 60 back.

When one says the subject is barred $, and you proceed to analyze, what it means, that is to say,
all the things that unfold from this result. I will give you an example. The bar indicates – pointing
to the upper section of the graph – that you cannot reach, or, go directly into that region. This is
why in the (signo) algorithm we wrote it as S/s does not indicate that the signified is not on the
region of the signifier. (Aside: he may be indicating that S for signifier on the algorithm is
positioned on the upper part of the graph and the signified on the register of unconsciousness)
The signifier to the extent that it is responsible (causal agency) for the enunciation then it does not
belong to the register of consciousness (y esto es lo que dibuja el verdadero panorama [same set])
this is what will sketch [same set] for us the true landscape. A landscape that is not very
(gratificante) gratifying, pleasing. It does not strike you as being sunny [same set]. One is
confronted with something rather strange. And [same set] as regards this point we will see why
Deleuze and Guatarri are not right in their reading of Lacan. If it were true that Lacan gives all the
power to the signifier we would say the signifier (lo podria todo) is able to do anything (it could
manage all) It is something strange; A master who is impotent and dead. It would be a good thing
for you to ask a Christian what he thinks of this (why? Because of Christ on the cross? I had written
then. It is how they use him as a fixed point of incestual exploitative violence, being the object-a of
everyone else who watches it)

San Juan says: “Una noche oscura en ancias. En amores inflamada. Oh dichosa aventura. Salis sin
ser notada estando ya mi casa sosegada” (anxious in a dark night. Swollen in love. Oh blessed
adventure. Step out w/o being noticed having left my house calm (after having had that anxiety
satisfied I guess) Asansi: And [same set] where does it go? It is on its way to encounter God, and
who is this God?: A fullness (una plenitude), because when I encounter (something that looks like
h ss) “how wonderful” (que maravilla), but you cannot say that San Juan is psychotic, but Screaber
[same set: same sinous line] recounts something similar “God has visited me tonight” [but Asansi reads
both accounts as literal. Not one metaphorically and the other as being literal. I had written then, but this is false. He implies,
somewhat, that the first account is a poem, but for the guy, if he believed literally in God (like they do now) then it might be an issue.
Again, the idea is how is the standard set? When they committ genocide in the Americas, pogroms and genocide in Europe, in Africa,
mengeleing, snuffing unconscioius kids hundreds at a time, having a monopoly on education, exploiting morality so working class
people dish them money out to finance the snuff raping of their kids, non-consentual unconscious orgies with kids with military
weaponry next to them: IUFAN and Tiuna Fort (both US military bases), then you have their standard: “The Saint “J.P. The second etc
what are they? Psychopaths no?, but certainly not the standard for which to aim.] Here ends what was on page 60 back.
What follows is on the front of page 61.

(Es Otro) that Other of which we speak, who is in this case God, and if Deleuze is correct the
signifier of Lacan would have to be like the one just described in the poetry I was reading. It would
have to be able to achieve anything (no, remainders. It would be a meta-language [same set] apparently another one that
is difficult to repress. So, to the answer above: what are they?. They are “God, and they act on it”) It would have to organize
the field of experience in an extraordinary sort of way (cortandolo todo) everything discretized
through the signifier, but instead of this what Lacan is saying that the signifier is empty (non-
referential, and non-identity with itself?) Now, are you aware of the consequences that follow
from this? If there is any (planteamento: sucitar, y poner en condiciones de resolver un problema,
asunto) radically atheistic set of explanations/solutions are those of Lacan, because he is saying:
“The Other, that Other is not the tomb in which God is buried. It simply means that the tomb was
always empty” It means that the signifier is not capable to (sancionar) sanction the need, and this
is so, because something is always left out, falls outside of it. The signifier is impotent.

So, why is there a talk of the imperialism of the signifier when Lacan is pointing out its impotence.
So, what is the meaning, then…(of such an expression, his comment on the sig). It is here that we
encounter the problem of “what is a signifier?”, because we may be of the opinion that we know
what a signifier is. Everyone is linguistics says: “Ohh, yes the sig”, but in a while you will see that
we do not know what kind of thing it is. This appears odd don´t you think?, but since a while back
we were talking about the code and the autre, and what it controls (lo que queremos) the
demand, who is responsible for the enunciation…but watch out his is responsible for the
enunciation, because he is not responsible for it (or he can become responsible for it, because he
admits that at first it is outside of his control. It is only later that one can go back an “fix it”
[45:07min my comment in brackets. I had written] (here ends what was on page 61 front what
follows is on page 61 back)
He cannot be responsible for the enunciation (por que no puede: 44:00min) because he is unable
to (a limit to our capacity for instropection and control over ourselves), and if he cannot what is
the meaning, then, of this conclusion? It means that those responsible for the enunciation
(estaban vacios) were empty [45:10min] (estan mas vacios aun) they are even emptier still. The
agency that is supposed to sancionar (regulate) does not regulate. This movement that goes from
here to here – pointing at a graph not shown, but I have added, demonstrate that ABC is that s(o)
that seeks/is on its way to be validated by “Autre” Other, and “Autre” fails to pass a judgement
over it, and once it fails to sancionarlo this yields the formula Desire = need – demand (or ABC to
ABCD when the process of sanctioning fails? See notes), but is now shown ,or, taken to the
register of the unconscious (ABC – ABCD) not that of consciousness. The latter brings forth an
instability: an absolute instability of the subject. So, we may think of it as (cruzado por fuerzas que
no controla) he is criss-crossed [same set] traversed by forces outside his control (obviously
connecting to “The Tour of Calculus” and “He faces forces he does not understand” in super-egoic
enjoyment of infantile snuff), and this is a discovery that has to be attributed to psychoanalysis,
but now (ubicado en un punto donde Freud no habia llegado) positioned in a place, and in such a
manner never reached by Freud, because Freud in “The Ego and The Id” clearly explains that “of
the 3 great agencies (instancias: accion o effecto de instar. La investigacion se realizo a instancias
del fiscal): ego, id, and super-ego [ego, inhuman core, what was ego now is: super-ego?
Affirmation, negation, and negation of negation? Second dialectical transformation] The ego is not
absolutely conscious (not in a meta-language sense, but they think themselves God) (no es del
todo conciente) there is a region of the ego that is unconscious, and he says that “the ego (es una
function de sintesis) is the result of (the workings) of a synthesis”, but the problem of Freud´s ego,
having a conscious and unconscious dimension (here ends what was on page 61 back what follows
is on page 62 front)

Es una cohesion de yo dividido (the cohesion, unity, of a divided ego) In Freud´s graph we can see
that the ego and the super-ego are related (positioned) in a relation of contiguity (contiguo: Que
esta junto a Otra cosa)[metonymy? I had written then]. Lacan disagrees, what we call “ego” is
divided, because the contiguous relationship between both is severed. There is no such thing as an
“ego” we have two egos, but the two do not form an identity (no hay dos como identidad), but
what we rather have here is one of them – as in the realm of fiction – assuming
responsibility/agency, and another that is empty (le je). It is “le je” that belongs to what Freud
called “The Unconscious Ego” or “Unconscious part of the ego”, but the unconscious ego is
everything except a “yo”, what the ego is, understood in a psychological way – according to rojas
marcos [same set] – is that i from i(a) on the lower (conscious) part of graph. It is what is
understood as the Ego belonging to the domain of representation (the subject of the statement. Es
aqui donde nos entendemos como los que dominamos la representacion. He says it in this way:
Aquí entendemos que dominamos la representación), but by looking at the way this “i” is
constituted, constructed we understand that we do not control it. The graph of pg 61 is the one
that opens “pandorax´s box” it is at this point where we fire “against religion” when we were
talking about “The Other being dead”, “The Other being impotent” when San Juan writes about
God what comes out is the infinite distance between one and the Other, but not as Simone Weil,
not the God that hid and through which I approach by means of a mystical experience [same set],
and then simply abandons you. This is false. It has abandoned you, because it has never existed. (I
had written: it really made an emphasis on this onto-quantum-mechanically-self-willed snuffer “please provides us with a recordable
The “A” in Autre represents the
experience of infantile death” a demand that never stops: automated/programmed)
Other that is incapable of sanctioning me (I had written: St. Paul on freedom(?)) here ends what
was on page 62 front what follows is on page 62 back.

And [same set] since it cannot santion me then one concludes that “Autre” lacks the power (is not
all) This is the reason why Deleuze and Guatarri do a wrong reading of Derrida…sorry…Lacan,
because they do not understand this crucial point about the signifier [the issue of not-all. The issue
of meta-language? They really did not understand the issue of meta-language? Back then? Or did
they theorized it differently?] (50:31min)

Then he comes back to the issue: “The person adjusting his pants 500 times is demanding
something. A demand that, as we have said, is independent of his will, but what follows is a
repetition of what I have already written [same set]

He really restarts at 1:19:11min

The Unconscious According to Lacan (Related to the Upper part of the Graph)

Phrase: “The unconscious is structure like a language” usually interpreted as a way to structurally
box-in the unconscious (too literal an interpretation, rather than a first approach), but if you look
at it closely it is a simil (a comparison, pointing to some isomorphisms between structures, or
possible structures) “The unconscious is like (not it is) a language” What is the difference between
a simil, and a metaphor, that is to say, their particular differences, differences in their predications
(their determinations). The comparison (simil) is less definitive when it comes to establishing an
identity between two terms. It establishes (marca, leaves a mark) a relation of similarities. So,
when I say “A” is like “B” I am not saying “A is B” , but rather that “A” sustains a relationship of
similarity with “B” If we make this clarification our starting point we will understand that Lacan is
speaking of the structure of language, and at the same time he is not speaking of the structure of
language. If we (retrotaemos) go back to what we were saying before (the initial (O) that had been
resignified in a particular way, but was lakcing, so it may be resignified again by replacing it
altogether, or, by adding to it further specifications, determinations) to what we were saying we
will see that the sig occupying an unconscious position is empty. So, that when we say that it is like
a language (here ends what was on the back of page62. What follows is on the front of page 63)

What we are saying is that the formal laws of the signifier work in the same manner in both
registers of the graph with difference residing in that it is in the conscious register that the sig has
meaning, and in the unconscious register they lack sense. That is, the unconscious is structured
like a language, because all the metaphorical, and metonymical processes function, express
themselves in it (within it, and through its constructions), but what is lacks, in order to be a true
language, is a signified: it does not latch onto a signified. It does not tie the signifier to a signified,
that is to say, it lacks sense. But, if so what is a language that is absent, that it does not have, of
sense and meaning? The answer is: nothing. A language as a code exists because the register of
expression is tied to a register of content: a signifier, and a signified. If we lack the signified, the
register of content, or sense then what sort of language is it? It is a language to the extent they are
signifying chains (compare with signifying structures. In the Cambridge companion to Chomsky: the black cab driver example: and
how if you say “the black cab” driver the meaning is different from saying “the black” cab driver [the cab driver whose tone gives me
permission, because it does not: so it ties with Analysis] because of the modification of the structure.)

If you contemplate [same set] compare the conception of the unconscious in Freud and Lacan you
realize the really surprising, and terrifying (interpretation) re-arreangement made by Lacan,
because if we are to think the unconscious in terms of repressed psychic material then you could
reasonably think that it has some hidden meaning (signification), and although hidden, it would
still remain meaning, signification, as Asansi puts it: meaning nevertheless. But this is not the case
in Lacan. When he analyzes the unconscious he does so in a way that shows that the unconscious
lacks sense. All the theory developed by Deleuze in “The Logic of Sense” can be found here
(Lacan´s theories?), because he is (postulando, setting up as an axiom) establishing the postulate
that the condition of sense (for sense to exist, meaning, signified) is non-sense itself, but not in the
sense of there (base del language; pillar, foundation of language) being a site upon which language
is bases itself upon, on top of, non-sense. What he is saying (Lacan) is that the unconscious of
language is non-sense. (here ends what was on page 63 front. What follows is on the back of page
63)

The formulation of the unconscious of language draws out, and points out to an infinite distance
between the conceptions of the unconscious in Freud, and Lacan´s understanding of the same
subject regardless of how much he says “This is to be found in Freud” [what he is saying about the
unconscious. I had written then] He is constantly asserting his link with Freud (Asansi insinuates a
demand. An Insistent demand. That is what I wrote) but this thing Lacan always insists on saying
“What I have said is already to be found in Freud”, this link he is trying to establish, is false
(1:25:55min). We are not saying that there is no connection between the two. Lacan radicalizes
Freud. If you read Lacan´s text you will notice how he is constantly, repeatedly, reinterpreting,
fixing, redefining, what Freud had thought with regards to: Dora, Schreber, ratman, wolfman,
[same sets] the issue of death drive etc. He does this, because he is in disagreement with Freud
(esas correciones tinen un sentido. El sentido del desacuerdo), and that disagreement expresses
itself in his way of understanding the unconscious as something structured like a language. It is
important to point out that he says “like” not identical to a language otherwise you will
misunderstand what he says. He goes back to graph III. A che voiu [same set] should be right next
to it.(here ends what was on page 63 back what follows is on page 64 front)

need

We start with the phrase: “Desire is the desire of the Other” why is desire the desire of the Other?
Let us go back to the formula. Desire = need – demand. What this formula shows is that for need
to turn into a demand to make it to the phase of demand. It has to (alienate itself) Introduce itself
into-the-signifier. It has to do this in such a way that the sanction (of the “Autre”) of the signifier,
once it fails (al fallar) once it is not sanctioned in its entirety (the demand from the subject of pure
need) [al no ser completa] then this operation yields a remainder (el resto) (reminds me of
division; I had written then). This is the argument that is developed in order to say that desire is
not that which belongs to need. Desire surges from, emerges from, the conflict of the need with
the demand. The conflict between the need with the signifier (1:30:11min) said differently the
conflict between need and “Autre”. If this is the point (punto) of what is being said to justify Desire
= Need – Demand [remainder], and the conclusion that desire is not my (ego, yo) desire but the
result of the (operacion del Otro) (linguistics, discretizicing) workings (+ failure) of the Other, and
since we are aware that the Other is the Code & “Autre” is the signifier then out of all the
consequences that can be derived from it we can, in this very moment, confirm that if desire
appears here (The “d” I had drawn on the graph to the right of the “Che Vuoi?” [same set: infantile snuff: “que hubo” in
Venezuelan spanish into which I was born + the owl thing [same set]. The have been using this in such a manner for the last 10yrs. The
I pointed out yesterday that the whole line of the
link this with, always, NFL-DNA as drowsiness began to set in]
right section of the graph corresponds to the Code. Here page 64 front ends what follows is on the
back

(O)

i(a)

If that is the case then what used to be “C” for code in graph II. It has (escindido) divided itself into
“Autre” (y articulado con el deseo), and “A” articulated with desire. And [same set] this means that
if desire has been found in the code is, because desire has its origins when the signifier fails that is
why “desire is the desire of the Other”, because it is a remainder of its operational procedures.
This means that strictly speaking there cannot be such a thing as (deseo propio) my very
subjective, particular, unotherized (unligustic), desire. There can only be desire in the negative
dialectic between need & demand (So desire could express itself as a symptomatically remainder?)
[1:31:45min]

$◊D

(O)
 i(a)

We now have a clear understanding of two formulas: 1st “The unconscious is structured like a
language” and 2nd) Desire is the desire of the Other (Que sea el otro el que desea) that it is the
Other that desires presents itself to us as an ambiguous phrase. The section that reads “…of the
mOther” has two values (tiene un doble valor) genetivo objetivo, and genetivo subjetivo, that is to
say, two subjects that are involved and participate in a relationship: in that “x”-mOther process.
The one who desires the mOther is also desired by the mOther (meaning both senses of the
genetivo) If the mOther is the “Autre” if she is this first Otro (see Baily [same set]) as I said
yesterday: The child has to move/position itself in the (redundant) position of the phallus vis-a-vi
the mOther as imaginary phallus. Otherwise he cannot stop the movement (? My guess is that the
kid does not find within himself some sort of anchoring point, fixed point, so he/she feel wobbly
w/o a center of gravity) would not be able to create the essential matrix (this central symbolic
gravitational point: Zizek does talk about object-a as that which warps the symbolic space, and
what is implicit here is gravitation that warps it) [here ends what was on the back of page 64 what
follows is on the front of page 65] that would allow him to precipitate himself into what we would
call a paradigm [same set: “Guns of August” stain-period. 11/07/2017] of identity. If he is able to
do such a thing (1:33:43min) is because….(fijaros [same set: infantile snuff]) pay attention now (I
guess this means that he is got the imaginary phallus; a practical example of how this may be exploited (in this case: it is
normal to use it if you respect others) in the university discourse, or, concerts, speeches by politicians, etc. He wants
your undivided attention: the professor, band, politician, military officer, cop hierarchy, romantic relationships, friendly
relationship etc. And you are supposed to want to be that point upon which they concentrate so you may be, or, feel you have the
phallus: all abstract modes of interaction, and switching of positions. This is why these are supposed to be heavily regulated forms of
interaction, because they are very: all or nothing. They can reach that point. They do not want an indifferent crowd when they play
their stuff, or, booing them off the stage, same with a professor, same with politicians, same, in your own house really, same with the
army. You see? It is very all or nothing. It is not a good idea when Banholzer took you there so they could tell you they were God: twice
once in Wichita 97 and the other with “The Tough” tour of NIN, and APC shilling for army-God outside, and him shilling for Tricky and
Portishead inside the concert. Anybody saying anything about “these bands are friends” etc is bad news. It will get really egoically
violent extremely quickly that is why you get this “They want to kill, kill, kill, “take what you wanted and GO!” To protect themselves,
and keep their autonomy the victim is stealing from them” and those guys were already getting surveillance material on you etc, and
you are truly isolated in the midst of all this, and those degenerates commanding all that phallic attention, and insisting it be so: all or
nothing. Again, it could be done within certain norms, but once you break these you begin to get snuff surveillance material from some
audience member, apple´s biometric information, etc , then, you know, issues will arise: They have made it crimes against humanity
egoically-violent. These are not the way you relate to people normally, it will not lead to friendships, or, girlfriends . They know they
have secured that when they engage in it. They are ,in fact, securing to wipe them out of your existence. I am sure they rationalize it
with: “No, it is ok, they applaud when I am up there” Then you get 170+ “records” saying the same thing, or, dedicated to “their tool
army” same structuring of phallic attention again “army” people like Banholzer. You see they are the ones who interpret the sig as
them being “God”, but you know, it is the victim that thinks that about himself: displacement) in
the structure between the
relationship between the child and the mOther. What works is a desire flowing both ways: desire
for the mother, and the desire that the mOther feels for me (you see, but at some point someone has to cut that
link. So, when you pay for books, “concerts”, ipods, computers, schooling, etc, and they insist that it does not sever the link, then
something extremely bad has taken place. They begin to call themselves “God”, because they do not experience a limit to the reach of
their egos in Sadean maxim mode etc: Totally ejected. They equate finger-ass with raping them: the victims doing this to them that is
where it leads to, as they let them do all this to you, and snuff you for 10yrs straight. The truth is immediately related to the victims
raping them. See the Tyson thing on the paper “Mindset of Mentally Protected Snuffers”) In
that dialectic, in that two way
street, flow, to & fro movement, what is essential is in fact that the mOther does enact her desire
for me (que la madre me desee: validation?), because I desire the desire of the mother. Just as
Hegel said: “There is only self-consciousness in the moment in which a subject desires the desire
of the Other” when desire does not fall upon a material object, but upon something symbolic (a
signifying gaze, look, etc). And [same set] now Lacan repeats the formula: “To desire the Other´s
desire presupposes that I will position myself (al servicio del Otro) ready to serve the other”
(attentive obedience: “God”, “Army” etc…), because (logicamente) logically, I depend upon the
desire of the other. That which the Other desires is that which it (me otorga) bestows upon me at
the moment in which it is unable to sanction me completely [Lo que me otorga desde el momento
en el cual es incapaz de sancinarme completamente, by the way of remainder.] it is at that
moment (se estructura el deseo) desired is structured (is set in place?) at that point desire
emerges (is generated). There is no human desire that is merely an animal kind of desire, because
desire functions in animals in such a way that it is directly oriented towards the object, and it
either can ,or, cannot direct them towards the object. If the dog wants to have sex goes straight to
the source [same set] (here ends what was written on page 65 front what follows is on page 65
back) whether it is able to engage ,or, not in it. In our case we do not do that, because when we
get horny, we have to go through the B.O. to have sex before we manage to have sex
(otherwise….) if we have to go through the other before having sex that presupposes that during
sex we also have to go through it as well. Before sex, during it, and afterwards the Other is present
& exists through the entire set of events. The Other as (mediating?) something that exists in the
middle, and allows Lacan to say “there is no sexual relation” (w/o mediation hence the hatred for the symbolic,
the God thing, meta-language, “they order you” they are friendly, your family, you were adopted, and your parents? See? etc) when
he says this he does not mean that there is no intercourse, there is plenty of it, but this does not
imply a sexual relation. There is a moment in which Lacan says “Todos somos cornudos” (“we all
cheat on one another” rough translation), because desire always has sex with the Other. The
Other then exists as: signifier, code, and as someone embodied in a subject. The idea of cheating
then: your desire always has sex with the Other (passes through it, demand is made in language, “d” as remainder,
lodges itself into the signifier of the lack in the Other (relation “sex” with an Other) into fantasy formation which is an alienating Other
with which you identify (interrelate with, intercourse with, identify with etc) Given
the fact that desire sleeps with the
Other presupposes that responsibility of desire is to be located in the Other not in yourself. This
positions us in front of a landscape which as you can see presupposes the divition of (escindia)
what I desire in the conscious register, and in the Upper unconscious register section of the graph.
“Δ” the point at which I am conscious of the need have (la necesidad de la que yo soy conciente)
the principal need as drive of which I am unconscious $◊D, and the process through which I
believe myself to be responsible for all of it. To believe that one is responsible, I repeat, is not a
bad thing to do. (here ends what was on page 65 back, what follows is on page 66 front)

It has to be that way. I can think of a great many instances in which I can take responsibility for my
desire: when I ask someone “Do you desire me?” (gustas de me?) or when you tell them “I desire
you” It would be bad to say “The Other desires you” (the Other as language as unconscious desire)

We could says of the graph that it tries to synthesize (negation of negation) in knots what is a
rather complex situation. The term from graph I and III allows us to explain a great deal. For him
the graphs are priviledged access point into his teaching what is also advantageous is that the
graphs structure and destructure (desestructuran) (deconstruct?) If we understand the evolution
of the subject as it undergoes 3 stages (fases) 3 successive stages one could say: “el viviente (Δ)
parte de lo real in the mirror stage (departs from the real in the mirror stage). The viviente (the
living one: subject of pure need) reaches the imaginary register, and once the third temporal
phase of the Oedipus complex is resolved it reaches the symbolic (1:42:34min) The real, the
imaginary, and the symbolic. We might refer to them as 3 clearly demarcated separate stages, but
they are always present, and never leave the subject. Each one realizes a movement of aufhebung
each one are constitutive elements of the barred subject ($) remains(sustains itself?) But the way
in which they remain is what we have to clarify, because another element that demonstrates that
Deleuze and Guiatarrri do a mistake reading of Lacan is that they do not, or, cannot appreciate the
importance of the real in Lacan´s theory. (here ends what was written on page 66. What follows
will be on page 66 back)

The reason has to do with it being a mistake to think that the real is something that one simply
abandons. It is true that the symbolic carries out the eclipse of the real, but that “moving on” from
the real is not that of a total eclipse. It is a partial eclipse. The real will remain in the subject as a
hole (in signification?), and that hole is what is at stake in the clinical practice. There cannot be a
clinic, if, during transference we as patients do not position ourselves in relation to the real. If we
have to define these terms I would say, as Lacan puts it: “The real is the impossible” (source of
anxiety & excessive presence? What accts for sexual difference, unsymbolizable inhuman core of
subjectivity) It is that which I am unable to reach. The real is that which I am unable to have
hallucinations about (as certain as anxiety? See Lander on anxiety) I am unable to represent it the
real is that which remains outside of the symbolic

The imaginary will be understood as all the processes in which I create an (signifying?) image &
proceed to identify with (identification takes place. In relation to which occurs a very curios
phenomenon that Lacan calls – in the mirror stage text – “The image is empty” (hollogramatic? I
had then written. It is problably what Zizek calls appearance as such, pure semblance, there is
nothing behing the veil as it were), “and this is why the image presupposes a reaction” says Lacan
“eroto-aggressive” in relation to the Other that functions as an image. We find an ambivalence,
the ambivalence of the erotic relation & and aggressive relation (concerts: “learn to swim”
asphyxiating you pushing you against the metal rods at that very moment, obedience of a crowd:
army, death threats, they are “god” before the concert. Then “the tough” tour) Aggressively, given
that I do not reach that (punto [same set] que yo tengo de identificacion) that degree, level that I
hold as pre-requisite for identification(?) for agreeable satisfactorily level of satisfaction? Here
ends what was written on page 66 back. What follows is on page 67 front. If I do not reach that
point (que tengo como [same set] de indentificacion) that I have as a point of identification
(anticipation, and what takes place; that accomplishes illusory “oneness”) I have to find a way to
domesticate it (its elusiveness? Given lack of sexuel-rapport), and the only way to do this is
through the symbolic. What does the symbolic do to calm the image?. The symbolic presents itself
in a role as that which de-activates the anxiety that the image produces in me (their lack of
“oneness” control, identification to the point of absolute control?) (1:47:42min)
And [same set] this is the reason why the symbolic has the role of providing an order. And [same
set] this is why I said the symbolic introduces an order in the continuum of the real. There, where
there is no possibility of finding an order, the symbolic proceeds to introduce it, because it
introduces a division (particion) you could say when we move (graph III) from Δ to s(o) [& sanction
(O)] to the production of a message. It is a transit in which the text acquires meaning (se le da
sentido al texto) [meaning being provided, bestowed upon the text] and that includes the lapsus
(1:48:20min), and the moment when you realized what you have said, or it has said, and have to
fix it so you could say what you wanted to say. When we reach “C” in graph III what “C”´s circuit
produced was meaning. And [same set] meaning is produced through the organizational power of
the signifier (como ordenacion del significante) this implies something strange & it is paradoxical.
A heuristic paradox. Here ends what was on the front of page 67 (see its back for what follows)

The paradox is: the signifier does not have sense, and the signifier (engendra) produces meaning.
This opens a door for us. It allows us to understand why the unconscious- the empty signifier – in
the moment – at which produces the message it fills itself with a meaning of the Other s(O). And
[same set] that means that as it runs through the circuit of consciousness to the circuit of the
unconscious it is something of an imperative that the ego – understood as moi---i(a)- understands
(que entienda que aquello tiene sentido) that such a message, linguistic construction has meaning
(carries sense) and has meaning, because of (la puntuacion) or the process of punctuation. And
[same set] what the signifier always does is (another lift off into the “V” that will unite with the, in-
itself of gravity, to inform the victims of the type of particular satisfaction that, now as God, they
are to find in super-egoic-goce) occupy the place of sintagma [translated into English as phrases]
that is to say of a line (phrase, signifying chain, signifying structure), and that line is, or, could be
punctuated in one way or another (for what remains of these lectures as well as retroactively true for what preceeded it:
“another lift off into the “V” that will unite with the, in-itself of gravity, to inform the victims of the type of particular satisfaction that,
So, for example, I could say: “These diamonds belong to his
now as God, they are to find in super-egoic-goce”)
wife” [same set] (estos son de-amantes de su mujer) or “This is his house” [same set] into “This is
his ho-use” [same set] The simple substitution in the diamond case – of the “e” for the “i” & the
problem that results from these (this) substitution [modification in meaning] (misrecognition)
presupposes that the moment when we transit the lower graph & graph move from here to (Δ to
(O) to s(O) to sanction) (´A´) sanction what is produced is what the linguists call los semantemas
(semantics?) that is to say the message (se llena) acquires meaning. What we find is logical (a set
of logical steps I am guessing) sequence for lapsus ,or, not-lapsus formations, and they are
produced through what we could call a sense of totality (un sentido – an imaginary punctuated
meaning? – De [totality] totalidad) but this is not the totality one is able to consciously register
obviously since it is clear that the starting point was on the [upper register (lapsus example)] the
empty sig. (here ends what was on page 67 back, what follows is on the front of page 68)

There are some notes on page 68 above for which I have left room. If the starting point is the
empty feature of the signifier this presupposes that what is organizing meaning is the (sin-sentido)
non-sense (w/o sense) All this being a consequence of what we were explaining before on the first
lecture. What I want you to understand is that if this line (signifying chain, structure, phrase) the
line that goes from D-S represents

The diachronic axis of language to the extent that they reflect the laws of the signifier (metaphor,
metonymy?) If I can construct a set of rhetorical features such as: metaphor, metonymy, double
entadra, a pun, a paranomasia, all of them fall within the rhetorical figures [metaphorical +
metonymical operations I am guessing]) of metaphor, and metonymy. As you may know Aristotle
uses the word metaphor to designate the entire set of linguistic tropes. As you may know (Kubrick
was will have been right) Lacan says that the mechanism of the dream can be explained, or, are
metaphorical & metonymical processes. Turning both of these into the main points of references
that open up “The entire” game of language [same set] [same set]….Metaphors & metonymy are
not phenomena, but rather (La aperture de) that which opens up the unfolding of all these
phenomena. How many phenomenons can be articulated through the usage of association &
analogy? We would have to include the semantic register, morphological register, syntactical
register, the phonetical register, and you will see that any kind of associations is covered by
metaphor & if the relation is that of contiguity then they are covered under the umbrella of
metonymy. Metaphor, and metonymy represent the tip of the iceberg that (representan los dos
puntales de un iceberg que se abre a todos los juegos del lenguaje) [what follows is on the back of
page 68]

If the games of language are produced on the line D---S apparently as a result of one´s will, just as
the poet, and the artist believe that when they represent a metaphor that they control it, that is to
say control the mechanism of constructing the set of representations, we may tell them, for now,
that we agree with them. It could be the case that the artist will later tell you: “I do not know why I
do what I do, or, how I manage to accomplish it” (after a number of inquiries I am guessing; I had
written then. The issue of introspection). Similar to the ancient greeks when they would say that
“the muses speak to them” in a mental state Plato spoke of as “enthusiasm” [same set] It is
interesting, because the greeks, people like Socrates, locate this process outside consciousness
(notice it timed that, again looking after that master that does not exist, with drowsiness
fragmentation for infantile snuff: what the “kill” sig means for them: to charitize themselves
infantile snuff) This is why Lacan says that it was Socrates that invented psychoanalysis, because
he always shows the absolute ignorance that the subject finds himself in. This is so, because
knowledge and language come from another place – the muses, or, as Lacan would say “musa-
arañas [spider-muses (same set)]” – from the signifier, but if we proceed and move to the line D´-
S´ on the upper part the process opened by metaphor and metonymy are to be found with the
same with the same degree of power as below, but working at the register of the unconscious &
this means that metaphor and metonymy, analogy, and contiguity that cover in a comprehensive
manner all that we studied in elementary school [notice the timing again increased drowsiness
fragmentation] all these things that are called rhetorical figures, as if they were unimportant,
trivial, innocent things (not mechanisms for thinking: vital, to be removed if yummy is to be
charatized) picks up at “Δ” and this means that given that we have inverted the process
(how?)….,because remember something: (clearly he forgets to continue the train [same set] of
thought) we have said that the process moves from register I to register II the overdetermination
of the unconscious moves from the lower towards the upper region that is why the lines that
move upwards end up – like rockets [same set: notice fragmentation, elementary decoy, and
austraunat as a kid…] – falling down [consciousness weaving messages. Determining “R”2 & “R”2
[same set] determining conscious register] here ends what was on the back of page 68 what
follows is on the front of page 6-sexy-9 (notice the timing: drowsiness fragmentation)
The trajectory of “Δ” to “le moi” presupposes that the (el funcionamiento de las asociaciones
produced by metaphor) functioning of that set of associations produced by metaphors, and those
produced by metonymy organized the field of representations to the extent that (en tanto en
cuando [same set] estan sueltas) those products (signifying products, semantic outputs) are
floating signfiers [it wanted the term “loosened up” to refered to brutalizing infants in a state of rapeable infancy analy: memory
of childhood from the U.S. air force base: La Carlota. Abusing a blonde American girl about my age 3 or 4 yrs old. Notice the timing
but what do we mean by floating signifiers, estar sueltas?
drowsiness fragmentation for infantile snuff continues]
Let us go back to what we were saying before (and retroactivize that empty sig he might have left
undetermined) if I have a demand that sustains itself against my will, independent of my will, it is
because the set of operations of that unconscious structured like a language, in the sense in which
we specified earlier govern the behavior of the subject. (So, a symptom is a linguistic unconscious
construction, expressing itself in an demand independent of our will, but controls our behavior
nevertheless, as in the case of the person adjusting his pants) And they overdetermine the lower
conscious register since we also find in this register the laws of language: what we call processes
of language as mechanisms of construction and of representation. Jakobson, who was around
Lacan´s orbit so he could ultimately undergo this process I call martirization [same set] , he, Lacan,
would adopt Jakobson´s planteameantos, or, theories, but always would sabotage them one after
the other. Jakobson discovered that metaphor and metonymy were neurological processes, or,
neuro-linguistics, and he reached these conclusions, and developed all these theories through his
studies on aphasia (1:59:30min) I have always thought interesting that for Jakobson as well as
Lacan. (here ends what was on the front of page 6-sexy-9 notice infantile snuff, and the
infantilization through aphasia, and the selected page number. What follows is on the back of the
never losing 6-sexy-9)

Formulate a theory of language starting from anomalies (like if a part of the brain is damaged, and
as a result you are unable to do: x, y, z then you may understand how such: x,y,z depend upon this
part of the brain for you to realize: x,y,z some kind of understanding etc. At this point with
drowsiness fragementation introduces: Donald, Carlota friends of God, Davidson [same set]
Noticed that it saved it for this page.)

Lacan does not develop his algorithm [same set: see his comment on neurotico de la leche, frustrated, for not being able
to come to infantile snuff just like he wanted] for the sig (S/s), because he thought it aesthetically pleasing. He
developed it from clinical observations, an inference he made, and Jakobson made the same, and
reaches the conclusion that in order to speak a person must go through two processes: selection
(lexicon), and combine (diachrony). The selection is the metaphor (selecting one word to
substitute another) what Jakobson calls combination is metonymy, but the limit of Jakobson is
that he situates them only within the plain of consciousness. He does not realize that in aphasy (el
olvido; crucial for snuffers to loosen up what they have to save America) forgetfulness expresses
itself in an empty signifier that (tapa una cosa llena) plugs a thing that is filled [same set]
(2:00:39min) this is what Lacan tells him. Hence we find that Lacan takes, Jakobson´s schema,
these two dimensions: selection, and combination, and defines them as processes that take place
in a contingent & random unpredictable manner in the upper side of the graph iii (outside the
register of conscious control): the unconscious (2:00:58min) and proceed to organize the register
below.

Asansi truly insists on the following point: The idea that Lacan performed a structuralist reading is
radically false. He used structuralism, but that is the point he instrumentalized it for specific
purposes he transformed it to describe what happens in the graph III. (here ends what was on the
never losing if you hit them unconscious in the back of page 6-sexy-9. What follows is on the front
of page 70)

So, Lacan is not a structuralist, but rather against it, at the same level as Derrida, but articulated in
his own way. The Other important point to remember is that if the signifier is the Other (Autre
code) and proceed to identify the Other as being metaphysical as Derrida then you will see two
different version of the same issue/problem, because for Derrida metaphysics is powerful
(potente), but it has fissures within it through which one can carry out a process of
deconstruction, but in Lacan the signifier is fissured before hand, and this is seen in the fact that
the “autre” cannot sanction it completely hence the “d” about “autre”, and this means that before
Derrida is able to say metaphysics is powerful (potente, potent) Lacan says that metaphysics is
already broken that (automaton mechanism) is, metaphysical thought is dead already
(2:02:35min), but this does not mean that metaphysical thought does not produce effects

Graph of the Discourse of the Other. Graph III by another name (2:07:10min)
Formulas such as: “Desire is the desire of the Other” we have also talked of repetition (insistent
demand? The symptomal torsions of a regime Badiou talks about elsewhere with Zizek?) and this
graph represents the latter two it can do so, because as before the code appears escindido. It its
divided in two tersm: 1st is (O) & the Other term shifted from “A” to $. Notes below it as they
relate to the matheme for drive ($◊D): here we used to have an “A” tied to “d” below, or, “A”
articulada once “d” appears after code cannot sanction. (here ends what was on page 70 front.
What follows is on the back of page 70 back)

On this point what does a term similar to what appears on graph III S (as signifier of the Other)
articulated with a barred Other S(O) this point used to be in graph III as S(A) and now appears as
S(A) the signifier of the lack in the Other (de la falta en el Otro) Why does Lacan say: “of a lack in
the Other?” because as I have said before the Other does not sanction absolutely. It fails. That is to
say he writes the signifier of a lack in the Other. The Other lack (es faltante) it is not the fullness of
which San Juan speaks. Es un vacio. A void that is why it is represented (A) it is an Autre (Other)
that lacks. The answer to the Che Vuoi? [same set]

$◊D is the algorithm that represents the drive (2:09:00min) the matheme of the drive. $◊a is the
formula for el fantasma where “a” refers to object-a. The “d” articula “le je” [slips, forgetfulness +
expressions of the failures of the code as you speak through it? that it begins to fail badly in a
sense: symptomatically so?] which is the beta of graph II. The “m” of graph 4 stands for “le moi”
the “yo” sicologico (2:10:13min) i(a) is the decoy so “le moi” can believe it controls the
representations, and on the left side that you will see “a” appears on the top and bottom
(2:10:20min) The matheme for the $◊a is redoubled on the register of consciousness: the “a” on
i(a) on the register of consciousness is the decoy for object-a (I as an Other) i(a) keeps on
designating the illusion of control over representations. (I think the repetition is supposed to be
exemplary that Asansi is also not in control: a lived example if you will. I guess)

“O” and “S” han conseguido mencionar en el mismo recorrido diacronia & sincronia which up until
now it used to appear as “D” or as “S” (D—S as signifying chains) and they still express the
metaphorical and metonymical mechanism of language on both levels of the graph D-S, D´-S´, the
appearance of the voice has to do with the fact that the signifier has an essential relation with the
voice to the extent it is an element of communication of the subject.(this ends what was on the
back of page 70. What follows is on the front of page 71)

And [same set] in a few moments ago you will see what the element voice means. In summary
Graph 4: Discourse of the Other why graph 4, in order to constitute itself, had to change a number
of terms from graph 3.

A few moments ago I talked about the phenomenon of repetition if the Other lacks (El otro me
falta y faltando engendra el deseo) and in this lacking state generates desire (I am guessing he is
reading this as Δ---(o)sig-- through $◊D reaching a lacking Other (O) generating $◊a & desire?
Or Δ--alienation in “autre”---desire “d”--through “che vuoi?”- fantasy matheme generating
articulated “d” going upwards to $◊D & S(O)?). The lacking Other (me obliga) forces me, induces
repetition, insistence. If I were to find something & this were to be an all fulfilling encounter (de
plenitud) he/she would have already gotten it, and that “would have already…” means I have it &
No longer need it. Only when “I have something of it, but have yet to have (achieve) an all fulfilling
experience” occurs (2:13:40min) [same set] this shows the path of love: why we cheat, and love
etc. Lacan “Love is to give what one does not have to someone that does not want it” [non-
conincidence, and sexuel-rapport, the limitations, and attempts at love, identity in oneness failing
etc.]

The reason why the Other is uncapable of sanctioning (fully) my demand. My need. This creates a
flow through a circuit. Ex: washing your hands 500 times you can see repetition due to the
insistence the signifier of the Other effects (hace) on the Other articulado with a desire. That is to
say I will not stop desire, nor desire will have an object. (here ends what was on page 71 front
what follows is on page 71 back)

There is something that I have always found surprising. Namely, Deleuze and Guitarri´s saying
“Desire is an orphan” [same set], but if this is the case in Lacan then desire is completely
unconsolable [same set] It is not enough to say that it is orphan you have to go all the way to the
point of saying that it never had parents [same set] Repetition is found in the circuits: (O), s(o),
$◊a, S(O), S◊a, S(O), S◊D, d, (O). The starting point of the circuit is the drive $◊D. The drive is a
complex issue in psychoanalysis Freud wrote a series of texts where he deals with the subject:
Screber case, essay on the sexual lives of people, and particularly “The drive and its destinations”
where he also formulates “the active” with the masculine, and the passive with the femininity, and
as we will later see in Lacan this is not the case. He subverts the principle that brings forth “the
passive” and “the active” (2:17:13min) Lacan shows that the feminine is not tied to masochism by
necessity & sadism limited to men. And [same set] we will see this on the matheme – Asansi insists
– for S◊D: barred subject tied to desire [that is how he reads it instead of “D” standing for drive]
The subject being locked in drive, but the drive sustains itself, because of something. Something
sustains it. When one engages in repetition it is because you are searching for something, one has
to ask what is it that one is after? What the person is after $◊a el fantasma. Lacan´s fantasma has
nothing to do with Hamlet´s dad. [same set: obsessed with that the last few days when unable to
yield infantile snuff directly from the victim. It moves onto people he can still relate to
11/07/2017]

Ex: A drive in which you find a mix of love and sexuality, object-a functions in a way that tells me
that the person with whom I have fallen in love will give me something (impresionante) that will
impress me and as a consequence of this I will be really happy” after which we find out this is not
the case [same set: mlb as usual] (here ends what was on page 71 back. What follows is on page
72)

And [same set] that is why on the first lecture I said that out of 3 possible responses from
someone you like it is better they do not pay attention to you.[same set] If they do pay attention,
and are responsible you will find out that the (plenitude) fullness you expect is not there, but
rather they are empty (Asansi wanting to save you the disappointment; I had written) Hence love
cannot present itself as a good situation, that is to say, let us presuppose, as psychoanalysis does,
(we will see if this will lead to lift off) that every subject wants to reach the state of goce. And
[same set] I am already super-egoically gozando with I will proceed to charitize myself: “this, this,
even goes for….BUDDHISTS!” AHHHHHH! [same set]. Try to accomplish Nirvana, Samadi & and
Nirvana speak of a place outside of suffering (thieving issue: same set), but the problem is, as
people in the NLS seminar on Kant avec Sade, that this only means that this is the perfect
definition of pleasure!- Asansi gets really excited himself and points out- the absence of suffering
is the perfect definition of pleasure! (2:22:43min) If people are ultimately after goce (goce telling
you not to gozar too much. It will tell you. If this is so what does that imply for all those people
that surround us?) driven towards jouissance then, I have to tell everyone here, love will not be a
solution to what they are after. I says this, because through the process (and during) of falling in
love, given that this other reveals his/her emptiness, the subject forgets jouissance. They simply
forget about it [same set]. Asansi then claims that jouissance must then be somewhere else, what
you are after (jouissance) will not be found in “love” even though may search there for it. What
you are really looking for is found in fantasy, or, the fantasma, because the fantasma then
becomes a logical articulation (of similar & opposite terms, subject-object etc) that allows the
subject to focus towards jouissance, that is to say, el fantasma is the means the subject has, and
they appear at the point at which the subject refuses to renounce jouissance (2:41:13min) It is
because of this that I will make the following point: the drive, to return to the subject from which
we begin, as it runs through the circuit I had pointed out earlier (crea) in turns develops a
petrification/fossilization [same set] (here ends what was on page 72. What follows is on the back
of page 72)

And [same set] a point of focus/fixicity which is expressed in the graph by the matheme $◊a what
is produced (in the generative logic of the circuits´ flow) is the fantasma (2:25:30min)

Question: On the usefulness of love. The issue of jouissance. We know that love is the wrong route
to take for a subject that is after goce, and since this cannot be renounced then $◊a presented
itself as a solution, or, where you can find the subject headed towards jouissance, but this does
not reduce the importance of love for Lacan does it? (2:28:46min)

Answer: Love for Lacan is a solution, because it is one of the positions the subject can adopt vis-a-
vi Jouissance. Jouissance is not pleasure. That presupposes that the relation between partial drive
and global drive which is crucial to understand the distinction between pleasure and goce. The
global ,and partial drive presupposes that which love is, positioned within the confines of a
reproductive sexuality, hence tipically capitalist, it situates itself in the position of a partial drive.
The global drive which positions itself (as the highest form of goce you could expect attempts of
the subject which reveal the intention towards the global objective) in an extemporaneous
position & static in relation to any position which the subject could occupy.

Love and its role in the clinic relates – obviously – to transference (2:30:00min) [Freudian dialectic]
here ends what was on the back of page72 what follows is on the front of page 73.

Going back to graph 4: Discourse of the Other (page 71)

If we had to start talking by talking about what the graph is trying to tell us we would have to start
by saying that the starting point, still, is the mythical subject of pure need. That is why we find it
there (2:31:55min) The search of delta is the code (Autre) (he says: La busqueda del Otro es
producir (semi-circle headed towards s(o)) ese mensaje s(O), but just as in graph 2 which showed
us how the short-circuit can occur when it comes to producing a message. That limit express in the
other, that insufficiency is what leads to the drive $◊D & that is why you see a line moving from
the code straight to the drive $◊D. The drive $◊D produces the signifier of the lacking Other (the
other that lacked after “autre” code is signified, particularized, determined. It begins to lack at that
moment, or, before it, but following what he is saying) S(O) that is to say an empty sig just as we
talked about it before about the signifier in the unconscious register. It lacks logical (caracter
logico) structure, but rather (si no por la logica del propio lenguaje – its laws of metaphor and
metonymy I suppose, articulated by the crazy/random/contingent processes of metaphor and
metonymy he spoke of earlier) Hence, not associated to a signified, and once it reaches S(O) from
$◊D a movement towards $◊D then a movement towards $◊D (space for a graph)
generates a repetition. A repetition also found in the lower part of the graph when we saw the
movement the code (O) to the message s(O) back to the code (O) in the process of sanction. La
sanction, because it works on the register of the unconscious has a circuit “d”-$◊a--S(O)-
($◊D)-”d” where we encounter “le je” [d], and the fantasma will present a discourse similar to
the drive´s discourse similar to the problem of jouissance (2:34:00min) [here ends page 73 front
what follows is on the back of pg 73]

Question/comment: Circuit delta to code (autre) the code has two options: produce a message
(arch towards s(O)) s(O) which heads back to (O) producing a retroactive effect out of this process
something falls out, is left – “d” which leads us to $◊D [drive] The drive produces (arch towards
S(O) a signifier of the (lacking) unconscious noe it lands on S(O)-here we have produced the
signifier of the lacking Other and heading back to $◊D (room for a graph) generates a
circuit: $◊D—d---$◊a etc A circuit of repetition the fantasma has a central role. From that circuit
mentioned above we stop at the fantasma and goes down towards s(O) signified of the Other
which can be – s(O)- message that I intended or a message is simply a lapsus manifesting itself. On
the register of consciousness we have a similar circuit [it is established by a movement: delta(O)
then s(O) the retroactivity to (O) again. At the beginning. I am guessing the circuit is established
afterwards] Once that is in place the circuit Asansi talks about is (O) then m then i(a) then s(O)
then (O). It should be rather $◊a then s(O) then m then i(a) then s(O) then(O) then m etc. A circuit
showing le moi (ego) to the extent it assumes responsibility for the enunciation responsibility for
the enunciation. Taking responsibility (a partir de) as soon as you identify with the decoy i(a) which
is the image of object-a (identity based on objects constructed during the process of
representation) (2:36:17min) on this lower register we have the illusion of the illusion of
sicological ego (como yo sicologico [same set])

Evidently in order to better grasp all this we must analyze the drive $◊D & the concept of fantasy
$◊a. [here ends what was written on page 73 back what follows is on page 74 front]

Question 2: Guess what?....”movie” (decoy) “Crepusculo” love, but love with death drive, and the
undead – jouissance or “love is ok, as long, as it is, a fantasy for which you pay the studios, if those
are the conditions, at least we worked that in, because they have their social priorities straight,
and that is it that is the value of what can be called love

For Hegel everything happens in the circuit of self-consciousness

“Desire for the desire of the Other” leading to an asymmetry between individuals, such desire,
leading to a Mater-Slave (register of infantile consciousness) split between people for Lacan it
relates to how need is not absolutely sanctioned by the code yielding “d” (taken to the register of
the unconscious) when he talks of “Desire of the Other” he is talking about under the expression
of a Code that cannot absolutize through its sanctioning our need, cannot extinguish it” (un codigo
que no acaba de sancionarnos del todo) a Code in which I try to find the truth a code called
“autre” in which I search for truth, but it is a truth that never delivers or hands over something. It
is in this sense, in which, we say “Desire is the desire of the Other”, because we are looking for
that level of recognition. What it refers to in the 1st place it is that other we call “Code” (so the
code may express-recognize our desire fully, but obviously, never doing so, because its function is
to limit, sanction it is structurally different from the subject of pure need singularity, particularity
delta & the universal (recognized messages by all, Code) that we may identity this Other with a
particular Other (person) as baily´s book 1st Other is mother [same set]. It deals with the position
“x” occupies vis-a-vi the mOther.

Question: Drive and fantasma on section 3. How each register ima-real-symbolic are to be
understood in relation to one another. Como cada uno se articula dialectically with the Other.
[here ends what was on page 74 front] There are some notes on top of page 74 for which I will
leave some room below. What is on page 74 back is his section 4/4 on Sadism and Masochism, but
he never delivered much on the Sadist part.

Section 3/4 pages 28-53(it was interrupting a great deal so things look strange with regards to the
pages given their interference to avoid the victim´s mind not to be infantilized)

The four (vertices) point pillars upon which Lacan´s theory of the subject is based: $◊a---d, moi---
i(a) the four pillars upon which the subject is based.

We will start by talking about what it is that the graph introduces. What are the set of elements it
provides (nos aporta) It also explains the reason behind of how we reach the point at which the
Code turns into the Autre, but it does not ceases to be the Code (to have code characteristics, or,
properties) It is split between:1) The Other and the s(O) as the Other articulated with the demand
(the relation of both concepts upon each other for their mutual contitutivity) 2) The divided
subject articulated through, or, with a demand. On the graph this can be seen from O TO O*
To the right of this graph I had the following notes: see page 35 Joel Dor Chp5 Introduction to the
reading of Lacan: β the fractured “x” that identifies the site of the cause of a break in the capacity
to deliver a message. A message of the ego into “ternera” [same set] in β´ which appears as a
rupture of “je” in the ima-real-symbolic formation.

What is behind this split? $◊a---d represents the dimension of the drive. An important question
vis-a-vi Lacan is: “Where is the body situated?” If (or is I do not know which one will make more
sense) the body is situated anywhere in the region of $◊a—d, and the barred subject is articulated
with its demand “a” (or d? as left over?) then in order to study the drive then we have to go back
to a formula we had used a couple of days earlier: Desire = demand – need. The distance created –
as a result of said operation – means that the sig is introduced between the need and the demand.
This distance then is the result of the presence of the sig in the subject. If we can say that what
sustains that distance between need and desire is the sig, and stills sustains , or, holds together
the formula of desire above then we can easily say that desire is on the side of the signifier. (here
ends what was on the back of page 35). The sig and desire occupy the same place. To say that the
sig is on the desire to the extent of creating the infinite distance –Lacan says – between need and
desire – this does not mean that said operation eliminates the section of the formula we had
designated as need. The need remains situated at a particular place (en algun punto [same set]) It
has to be found, localized somewhere. Even though said place will reach so far as to take us to a
biological reality w/o, paradoxically, also being unable to avoid the encounter with said reality.

Freud wrote an essay in 1915 [same set] entitled, or, translated as “The drive and its
destinies/vicissitudes” that establishes within the psychoanalytical field the theory of the drives. In
Lacan´s 11th seminar it appears as on the four central concepts of psychoanalysis. It is a text in
which he reads Freud, he invites the audience to read Freud´s text first and then read Lacan´s text
“El Desmontaje de la pulsion” where the term dissaemblage has a meaning (significacion) , a
meaning that we could call unquestionably obvious in its elaboration. Its obviousness is expressed
(it must be derived from) the fact that Lacan attempts to analyze and therefore atomize the drive.
You will read about the elements that constitute the drive, but the text could also be understood
as the way Lacan disassembles Freud. We could do so, because we are dealing with texts whose
characteristic we want to emphasize is their oppositionality. It is here that we can show that a
number of feminists reading of Lacan are wrong.

I am skipping a section of some lady that I think he made up. If you read the Freudian text on of its
main points, you find, is this allusion, to the difference between the active and the passive
dimensions which Freud formulates taking as his starting point a particular syntax. Let us use the
example between the active and the passive voice. The active voice is indicative of seeing, and the
passive voice is indicative of being seen (a shift in position from subject to object), and we would
call the reflexive voice, or, middle voice [same set] which indicates looking at oneself. The
preceeding 3 voices to which he now refers to as 3 times [same sets] which Freud insists upon
from a very early stain-period in is writings. As in the case of the 3 essays of sexuality [same set:
self-mastery for the gaze of the victim so they are seen: the object in a◊$. One could also add the
novel mom was being forced to read about French royalty preceeding the French revolution with
Marie Antoanniete “interpreted by” some propagandist for snuff: to be seen. They insisted on that
one] Where he talks about how the masculine is allied to sadism with vouyerism [same set] as well
as with the active, and the feminine is coupled with: masochism, exhibitionism and “passivity”

So, then he goes on to this thing about how her views on “films” are all wrong from a Lacanian
perspective [burnt book on Lacanian analysis of “films”] You can see why she is wrong in his text
“the disassemble of the drives” How he undergoes the difference between active and passive
(14:34min) this is important, because here Lacan erases all traces of the atheism of passivity.
Furtheremore the difference between the masochist and the sadist is not analyzed by Lacan in
terms of an opposition between the two. It could be analyzed in such a way by making the sadist
“active” and the masochist “passive” if so then we could say we are dealing with diametrically
opposed positions. (here ends what was on the back of page 2-sexy-9. What follows is on the front
of page 30) (Lacan would not theorize the latter two in such a way, and that will be the subject
with which will be dealing today: he lies he never does, but tries to flash the audience at the end
with the given the anticipation he sets up) The key text as we have said is “the disassemble of the
drives” [same set: self-mastery: to be seen] It is a text that must be understood in 2 registers (un
doble registro [same set: self-mastery: to be seen; Kuubrick was almost will have been right]. So,
we have first the analysis of the drive, and 2nd) a dissasemblage of the Fredian text even though
the latter is not explicitly alluded as a clear objective of his. We will also be reading from Lacan´s
own text so as to better illustrate what I am saying.

The Drive (16:23min)

The first thing: Does the drive belong to the register of the biological or not? Lacan denies that it
does that the drive must be consider as an expression of the organic register. He does so w/o
eliminating this register from consideration.

The barred subject as found in the upper right hand side of the graph in the matheme for the
drive: $◊D. The first thing to notice is that the drive shows (demonstrates) the impossibility of
access to the real. Although the real is the source from which need arises. A drive is not an empuje
(a form of pushing) it is not an internal force whose objective is to be discharged. The empuje is
one of the four elements that participate in what is known as the drive (presion (pressure), Fuente
(source), objeto (object),and Fiel or fien) 1st we have what is knows as drang: presion, empuje 2nd
Quele = Fuente 3rd object as object (I think he means appearance as appearance as Zizek points
out) and 4th Fiel = meta, fin, goal [same set] (here ends what was on page 30. What follows was on
the back of page 30)

The formulation of the 4 constituents of the drive (19:32min) which lead us to talk about the
assemblage of the drive in relation to which (as regards the assemblage) Lacan will say: “They do
not have to follow a particular order” that is we are not making the claim that the pulsion, or,
presion have to be 1st after which others may follow (as a sort of foundation) In reality we are
talking about an assemblage in which the 4 consituents are related to one another (se encuentran
en una relacion de desnivel: difference of height, between one point and another) due to the
asymmetrical position they occupy when we talk about empuje or drang (urge according to an
online dictionary) Lacan proceeds, following Freud closely, to formulate or conceptualize it as a
tendency towards discharging. The tendency is triggered (es motivado por) by an excitation
originating from within, and it is here that we well find one of the important elements of Lacan´s
dissamblages of Freud. That element will be the characterization of the empuje push as a constant
kraft, and this will be conceptualized as a constant force (ever present never satisfied force as in
Russell´s set?) and since it originates from within you cannot escape from it. The drive is not
something you can escape from. There is a moment where Lacan says “with regards to the drive
there is not (21:36min) such a thing as spring or winter, there is no up or down, there is no time
(properly speaking)” this provides us with a hint to know that the difference between the active
and the passive should be – properly speaking –the person with the drive, and the one with less of
a drive. In itself this presents itself as a contradiction. If we speak of a constant force there cannot
be an active pole (un polo active) [here ends what was on the back of page 30] with a “force”
which is constant (una fuerza mas constante) and a passive (un polo passivo) whose expression of
force is less constant, or, w/o force at all. Once Freud specifies the drive as a constant force it
becomes very difficult to be able to establish from that observation an opposition between passive
and active given that there would not be a subject that would not be submitted to that constant
force represented by the (empuje de la pulsion) pushing (look for a better word; I had written:
now a factor in misrecognition; that is what they turn that expression into) of the drive. Lacan runs
through all this is something of a hurried fashion w/o realizing that this would qualify as a good
argument to destabilize and problematize [same set; looking after the same master] the idea of a
passive, or, active pole, and this is so because he has already developed a more solid arguments
(potente) theory (powerful in its potency as a theory) to bring about the deconstruction of the
passive and active poles.

If we proceed and talk about the element known as the goal [same set] when we talk about it we
will notice something of a queer phenomenon that may worry all of us, this is so because what we
will encounter is that the goal of the drive is satisfaction, but keeping in mind, and Lacan makes
emphasis upon this, that sublimation is to be understood as a form of satisfaction (any mode of
aufhebung even if they are negative modes) that means that “no-satisfaction” (la no-satisfaccion)
is a form of satisfaction (Kant, Buddha, all these figures of fantasmagoria, girls w/o kegero faces =
cheats) which brings us to the realm of hallucination (see page 77 dylan evans) which means that
the satisfaction of the drives follow the path (here ends what was on the front of page 31 what
follows is on the back of page 31) of hallucination. I will now quote a few lines that Lacan
dedicates to this in particular “Freud says that aufhebung is also the satisfaction of the drive even
though it does not reach it, and that is why we say the lack of satisfaction is also a form of
satisfaction. We could say that in such moments I am not copulating” says Lacan “but nevertheless
I reach the same satisfaction as when copulating” [so he is widening the field of where the drive is
active; like part of a Borromean know in the sense of the register of the ima, for example, never is
simply dismissed, or, goes away] It is because of this that we have to ask ourselves if it is true that
when one truly copulates are we truly copulating when we do so [meaning that does not have to
be the way you satisfy you drive given the way the range of satisfaction of said drive has been
expanded: from no Buddhist satisfaction to flashing people? Hence the issue of cheating arising in
the case of romantic relations etc?] An extreme antinomy is established between two terms. We
can say w/o being wasteful [same set] that the characteristic of the function that drive is (drive
defined as a function), its ultimate feature, is its state of not being satisfied (from lack to returning
to lack, another expression of lack as cause? I had written then [same set]) There were Freud
opens up a gap, a hole, a crack that has a direct effect upon the concept of aufhebung as privation
of the object. So, he gives this example of becoming horny, but if copulation never arrives, for
whatever reason [same set: copulating in front of all the students to the murder of 12 girls] he can
sublimate it by jerking-off, and the question, after he gets done unloading, for him becomes: If this
is possible, to achieve satisfaction through the path of no-satisfaction since you are not having sex
with anyone after all, but you fantasize with the person you would have liked to have sex, then the
issue that is to be explored, that is brought forth, is to know if what Lacan says, about the destiny
of the drive being its not-satisfaction (here ends what was written on page 31 back)…the question
becomes (he did not satisfy, did you see? He also unloaded “another lesson”) is it truly the case
that when you are having sex with the person that you are truly having sex with him/her or if in
acutualy fact it more truly resembles masturbation with a partner (as Zizek has pointed out)
(24:45min)

Had Freud not introduced in his texts the issue of aufhebung then Asansi says Lacan would have
not been able to level this critique against Freud. Asansi calls Lacan´s way of reading Freud “a
negative reading” [A note: Asansi, Assassin: hence his flashing of two guns punkerocketing etc],
and Lacan makes the claim of needing to justify the circuit of the graph of the Other by making use
of such a negative reading. This way of conceptualizing drive turns out to be of fundamental
importance if you want to understand that in the precise moment when one reaches the drive a
circuit is established throws us onto the insistence of the demand. As you may remember with
regards to the graph of the unconscious we said what this graph shows is that a demand can
sustain itself regardless of whether the subject intends it or not. Regardless of his will [they just identify
with the will of the Other in this alienating sense when “Assassin” descends upon the students. He becomes an instrument of the
Other´s will. It is against his will, but he more consciously identifies with it, unlike Bruce that really does not like it, but this is already an
expression of linguistic alienation, and the unconscious, and the impossibility of meta-language, also deals with the issue of the self-
erasure of cause “the Other made them do it” in their case this opportunistic mode to exploit morality is even more pronounced. It is a
way to assert their structure. It does not mean that they are God. It is just a return to drive, but being very well aware of what they are
doing in a sense.]

What at the moment we failed to share with you was that precisely, because the demand can
sustain itself whether one likes it, or, not [same set] the demand finds a representation of itself in
its insistence. We encounter a representation of itself in its insistence. (se representa por su
insistencia) [here ends what was on page 32 front what follows is on the back of page 32]
(31:42min)

This demand that insists whether the assassin likes it, or, whether, as in the case of neurotics,
really do not like it has a principle characteristic: repetition. Its automatism (recursive function) In
this sense we could ask: what is the meaning that Lacan tried to give in the graph of the discourse
of the Other to the matheme for drive $◊D as the (creacion de) formulation of an insistent circuit
that travels from: $◊D to “d” again towards $◊a [this being the circuit] such a demand, argues
Lacan, only makes sense, because satisfaction is not the thing that is being reached (sexuel-
rapport, and sexual difference in Zizek lectures) obtained by the drive. The drive does not
accomplish satisfaction for the reasons we gave before. What distances the demand from this is
the presence of the signifier, and this cancels the possibility of the satisfaction of the need, or, in
terms of the drive that it may reach its destination. (34:00min) This contrast between satisfaction,
and not-satisfaction has allowed us to reach the conclusion that the objective “of the conclusion”
[aim used somewhat differently?] is the “not-conclusion”, he will expand on this later, but now
wants to move on to the issue of the object.

The object of the drive, that upon which the drive is based (aquello en lo que la pulsion se centra)
is sufficiently (patente [same set) obvious in Freud, but not so much in Lacan, that the particular
object is defined as totally different from the function. That this object is just a decoy, but in itself
it is of no revelance (I do not know if this refers to generative metonymycal slipping of the object
of desire, and that he wants to say that one may better look at it as an output, or, appearance as
such and not presuppose some specific type of depth, meaning beneath it, etc) [here ends what
was written on the back of page 32. What follows is on the front of page 33] It is from this idea
that that of which were speaking of earlier about copulation draws its strength from, because the
object is irrelevant (as an “assassin” he uses “indifferent” twice [same set] self-mastery: to be
seen] and this characteristic of its irrelevancy that characterizes this object what it shows is that
the drive is characterized by circulating around the object (una especie de Tour: the assassin needs
reinforcement from “Tour of Calculus” and Edna Estevez, the asphyxiating victim has proven
himself too much of a galactic threat)

If we now move to talk about “La Fuente” (source) it is identified with bodily orifices, but orifices
which are understood as contours [same set: more reinforcements] (outline of an object) such as:
The lips, the rims of the anus, the rims of the vagina, and the borders of the penis [same set; still
rejected] that is why when speaking of the object Lacan draws attention to those two points, and
he proceeds to define the object as: 1st) a limit around which the drive revolves and or as a
señuelo ($◊a) which is used so that the drive may achieve the aim of revolving around. Lacan then
proceeds to quote Freud “The drive is satisfied returning to the erogenous zone from which it
departed” and it is the concept of return that is characteristic of the drive (its loop, its self-
reflexive-self-recursivity) and since this is a permanent feature of it this presupposes that what is
truly important in the drive is the path that it follows (its generative recursivity) not its object (as
output)

If it is true that the drive is constituted by each of these four elements then it is possible for us to
talk about assemblage. This is why the drive provides a presentation of itself as a certain kind of
apparatus (reviste de cierta aparaticidad [same set: notice the reinforments preceeding, more and more masters to see which of
them will replace what cannot be replaced: the impossibility of identity between the universal, and particular in boring Aristotelan
form. I will have to adjust it to Hegel´s developments later on) in
which the signifier will play fundamental role.
(here ends what was on page 33, what follows is on page 33 back) Since the signifier is that which
retroactively constitutes, and does not allow access to the real (the real here being goce: “Goce is
forbidden to those who speak as such”) It is for this reason that we may say that Lacan´s theory of
the drive is a revolutionary leap from Freud´s own revolutionary discoveries. So, Freud contributes
the 4 elements and the analysis of the drive, but it is limited, because he did not go as far as
Lacan´s observation that “to the drive the object is irrelevant” Freud does go into trying to talk
about the object, but does not develop the thesis “to the drive the object is irrelevant” this is a
lacanian thesis ($◊a)

In the graph of the Other we will find a particular feature of the drive. We notice that it is in the
upper region of the graph (the matheme) (esta ocupando una pocision inconciente) it is firmly
lodged outside consciousness, but firmly set in the unconscious. For Assassin this carries with it
“sad news” for the losers in front of him(, but fuel, fuel, for the rocket heading towards “V”) that is
to say for the true narcissist (human narcissism in general as it links to i(a): but I am trying to bring
in context that is left out)

He will drop this in dialectical form: (affirmation)This means that “It is uncertain that that [same
set] which we desire is what we truly desire” (they will interpret his as “they do not think we know
them” as they phallic each other with abstract attention) negation (we are not at all certain that
that [same set] which we truly want is what we desire” or saying it differently: “we are not at all
certain that that [same set] which we recognize as an object of our desire be that which we truly
desire” [here ends what was on the back of page 33] (At this point lost it and it reminds you of the following:
“Barrish advice not to trust psychopaths, since he knew of a case of a psychologist who worked with him and the psychopath was do d-
drive committed that convinced her to lend him $20000. The want this to go in the usual direction, but notice the collection of masters;
it needed one where you were even more vulnerable, and closer to you after the others fail, because they never existed. Obviously
what follows from this is that he knew the type of people that were surrounding you and asking for psychological profiles of you as you
were paying for healthcare services. Anyways….)

If we can say that the drive is connected to the “d” of desire in the graph of the Other no es
obviamente porque que no haya (existan) deseos de los que no somos concientes. (it is obviously
not because there are not desires of which we are not conscious) There are not desires of which
we are not conscious. So, clearly we can be conscious of our desires: “I desire you” to some girl or
guy, “but not you” some other person. We have good news for those who are and are not desired.
These set of common expressions taking explicit and implicit forms are desires which are found on
the lower part of the graph (42:20min) and correspond to the m----i(a) section the decoy of the
psychological ego. What Lacan is trying to do is to establish/formulate not only the lack of
communication between the upper and lower part of the graph what he does is bring the news-
not very agreeable to your narcissism I hope [same set: more fuel], that desire in the register of
consciousness does not coincide with the desire found in the unconscious register, and out of this
non-coincidence a set of conflicts are generated, because if we can talk about desire in an
unconscious position as being a repressed signifier to the point where Lacan explains: “That which
is primordially repressed is a signifier” (see Bailly [same set] they were will have been right that is
the idea of exploiting indirect and public interactions with books) the skeletal structure
(scaffolding [same set]) that articulates itself to bring forth the symptom of that repressed signifier
is also a scaffolding signifier, or, signifier scaffolding (un andamiante significante) and we are fairily
well acquiented with skeletal structures since we are constantly dealing with them: strategies:
when they pretend they are victims of the victims of Nazi violence etc. (here ends what was on the
front of page34. What follows is on the back of page 34)

To say (decir): “If you leave me I will commit suicide, {(same set: same search for masters)[use for
T.I.´s I had then written [same set}} manipulating, or, blackmailing in general, if you share with
other t.i.´s you are a serial killer etc” [I had written then (same set)] the examples just given are
the signifier skeletal structures (andiamiante significante) built on top of the signifier which has
been primordially repressed. Since the drives are unconscious then this means that by necessity
they are beyond the register of consciousness of the patitent. In reality he ignores his drives, and
what he understands as drives is the andamiante significante of which we speaks [same set] If
Lacan situates desire at that upper register point: $◊a----d; he does so in order to make two make
2 things coincide: desire with “le je”, because this is the site of “le je” (el yo, although Roudinesco,
from what I remember equates “le je” with the subject of the unconscious, but make sure to
check) said differently: the theory of the “yo” in Lacan is similar to the way he approaches the
drive in Freud, in his theory of disassemblage of the drive, he also disassembles the theory of the
“yo” is Freud [same set]

He wants to rocket himself with something of a polemical comment (the students have yet to pay
him, the issue of the cutting of the link, see above) He thinks that people do not understand the
extent to which Lacan has transformed Freud. So, he wants to show how they are different and
will select some of the things he has talked about to concentrate further on the difference
between both. 1st For Freud the ego in “The ego and the Id”- when assassin say “yo” he means
ego- the ego is a type of unity that possesses a conscious an unconscious dimension, and it is
because of this conclusion, in “terminable and unterminable” analysis, Freud says,
notwithstanding Lacan´s insistence to the contrary, that clinical practice consists in reintegrating
the instincts of the ego given that the ego has developed a series of defensive mechanism that do
not given access to the fantasies of the subject (the fundamental fantasy I guess; Zizek says in the London lectures
that these are too difficult to subjectify, and that if you do you disintegrate, but we will see if he has a counter argument, or just wants
to “make the bitches come” in front of him. He has about 100 people in front of him: 100 surplus (hrs?) of total and barren, as always,
exploitation) [here ends what was written on the back of page 34 what follows is on the back of page
35 front]
Notes on top of the page: m-----i(a) vector: “le moi” and i(a) = “le je” but roudinesco does not
agree (ok, so there might be something to what I said above, maybe)

This remark was transformed into “The law of psychoanalysis” after Freud, and post-freudian
studies [same set] So, he says Lacan is kicked out, excommunicated from the IPA, because he
insisted that the emphasis of psychoanalytical practice must not be rooted, (or reduced to. I
guess), and must be unrelated to egoic mechanisms of defense. He insisted that it must be rooted
in transference as the path to the unconscious or $ (A) In this sense, he says, that the theory of the
ego is escindida (cut, severed) and placed at the bottom of graph 4. The ego as a formation of: m--
-i(a), and this is not the same as saying that the ego has a conscious, and unconscious dimension,
yet being the same self ego, that is to say, there are two instances that work, or, function en
contraste a la otra. Que trabajan la unaen contraste a la otra.

Le moi trabaja en contraste con le-je (49:09min) (see evanspage 50 [same set]) {the ego is an imaginary
symbolic formation: m----i(a), the subject is a product of the entrance to the symbolic. Indeed the ego is a meconnaisance of the
symbolic order. The seat of resistance.It is the source of resistance to treatment, and to strengthen it would only increase those
and that is why – when
resistances, evans page 51. And [same set] one could say further identification with the symptom}
working with the concept of drive- we may talk about conscious desires. We says that there is a
possibility that the desires of which we are conscious are not truly those things which we truly
desire. He says that it is difficult to express oneself clearly when talking about “le je”, because the
division between moi, and “le je” is to be found at the center, genesis, consitutions of phobias,
obsessional neurosis, etc (49:49min) [here ends what was on page 35 front, what follows is on
page 35 back]

You will see that when we talk about psychosis we will encounter an explanation that although
unrelated to this a differentiation is brought forth –an important difference (you can detect how
he does not want inquiring minds to ruin the moment of “paying him” with surplus) –when we
move onto the issue of the phallus.

When Lacan situates the drive in the register of the unconscious we are talking about something
the patient does not have access to. This means that when we talk about the irrelevance of the
object for the drive what we are saying is that the acts of the individual (as they regard their
nature and origin) are veiled to that person. This does not bring a great deal of relief (looking at the
audience Avila, Dighton, Dei-Dei style scanning like an bird of prey (nature in NLS seminar) hoping to catch the moment of aufhebung,
John Baines style, from bird of prey, into pray, back into or already with gravity ready to descend upon them like charitizer) , but I
felt like giving more in this class so, you know, it is simply better to know this.

Before continuing, I want to point to difference that is important to keep in mind (de desprende
de . It comes from) it will related to the drives in Freud and Lacan: partial and global. First, for both
of them it is important to separate the drive from the biological functions of reproduction,
because this biological function of reproduction would aufhebung, after entering into the
symbolic, into something like a partial drive separated from the global drive (to be connected with
the necessity of an arousing fantasy even to be able to reproduce I am gussing. Link to Zizek´s
comment on Freud “What it is that we think when we have to, or, are having sex”)
This separation is justified by the following explanation: If a couple wants to have sex they know
what they have to do, and this knowing presupposes that, they have to transit through the path of
the partial drive (vinculada) linked with the function of biological reproduction (real, or,
postponed: condoms etc)[same set] (here ends what was on the back of page 35 back. What
follows is on the front of page 36). Now, being a heat packing assassin, I want to shift gears into
comments made by Lacan, which are crucial here, with regards to Sadism and masochism [same
set] “In sadism and masochism a man and a woman do not know what to do” this is not because
the sadist does not know what to do (see Romulo lander) as well as the masochist, but because in
reality, to situate the place (locus) of jouissance, and pleasure in the sadist or masochist is a
question that is difficult to answer. He says that Freud´s attempt to situate it in erogenous zones
fails, and this failure implies that one has to situate the phenomenon (symbolically constructed)
sadism and masochism in the category of the global drives which does not necessarily connects
them with the biological functions of reproduction, and this makes it inevitable that one links, or,
establishes a relationship of the drives with the real. This connection shows that the true objective
of the drive is jouissance, goce, and since this is its objective one is lead to the inevitable
conclusion that it will, clearly, never be in a position to achieve said level of satisfaction. The
relationship between the drive and the real (mal marca) denotates in a failing (not-all?) manner
the global dimension of the drive (55:14min) when it is (we are dealing with?) the partial drive.
Every partial drive hides what we could call the coercion of the global drive. This point will be
important to remember when we talk about the field of sexual orientation (preference?) He calls it
“El campo de la orientacion sexual” In the mean time [same set] it would be beneficial to go to the
graph called: circuit of the drive (here ends what was on page 36 front. What follows is on page 36
back)

You will need some room for both graphs.

He wants to deconstruct the concepts of “the passive” and “the active” so he will analyze the
circuit of the drive graph. He sites page 185 of the 4 fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis.
Room for a graph below.
Quoting Lacan: “Freud then proceeds to show us the drive in a very traditional way using at every
moment the resources of language, and seeking support w/o expressing reservations (sin
vacilaciones) in something that belongs to certain linguistics systems. The three voices: active,
passive, and reflexive” [see Evans, Dylan page 47 (same set)] said in a different manner: The
reason why Freud makes the analysis that he does is found in the nature of the German language
and Greek language which according to Heidgger were the only two languages in which you could
practice philosophy. So, Lacan is accusing Freud of being ethnocentric. The three voices are
pointed out when he specifies the elements that constitute the drive he himself pushed for the
idea that in the drive we find 3 positions (participant 3 posiciones; three postions participate in the
constitution, and articulation/expression of the drive) When applied to the scopic function we
would get: “Ver, ser visto, mirarse (verse)” or “pegar, pegarse, ser pegado” (censored version of:
to yummy, yummy oneself, be yummied) {[applicable to any verb? I had written then [same set]} It
is important to pay attention to (reparar en [same set: you know why he insist on quedarse fijado
alli, same as in NLS complaint of Epictetus]) how Freud is unable to (designate) define these two
poles (enjoying Freud´s limitation, and them misrecognizing the victim in an flip. Ok, so you have, once again a recursive function
here that you may work on, and the proceed to want to contribute by saying that these are “Vagas” allusions etc that they must take,
and benefit from brutalizing your family, because as dad says “Well, we have brutalized him, snuffed him, burnt all his books so he does
not have the means to develop them. Someone has to do it” and that is another loop you may work on: misrecognition generating
w/o working upon that something we call verb (here ends what was on page36 back,
rationalizations?)
what follows is on page 37 front) To see, and be seen. Atormentar (yummiar) and ser
Atormentado (yummiado).

This is the case, because from the very beginning Freud assumes that there is not a single point in
the trajectory of the drive that would separate itself from its circular movement. We can further
validate this observation by moving onto the graph to observe the following: The border; the path
traveled by the drive from point 1 to point 2 represents the countours of the orifice that is around
which the drive revolves (en torno al cual [same set] gira la pulsion. Its center of gravity) the way it
revolves/circulates from right to left is known as “the aim” (the name for the motion itself: or the
generative movements that enable motion) and it is taken to reach the point named goal (which I
am guessing is on the lower part of the graph) whose objective is the same as the points painted
on a target that constitute the objective axis towards which the axis is directed [same set], but the
goal is not the object it is the point (place of inscription?) at the center, and as such, (he is ready to
deliver to the students what he knows they desire, but resides on the upper part of the graph;
what follows is a contradiction whose geometrical sinous shape is implicit in its delivery) what the
drive does is circulate (girar) en torno al borde (? I had written then: something he thought we
owed him)

So, we can say that what is fundamental [same set] essential about the drive is the trajectory it
takes towards satisfaction towards its failure: la vuelta as giro en torno al orificio. The signifier
preceeds the entire path, because it is only after entrance into the symbolic order that the drive is
constituted and can proceed to follow that path. It is the signifier that establishes sexual
difference, and does not enable the drive to reach its object. The idea of the graph is to represent
the idea of circular movements made by the drive around the border or the orifice. The pressure is
the knot (ribbon [same set] self-mastery: to be seen; part of the sinuous curve. You could actually
model the entirety of the sinous curve that governs the entire geometry of enjoyment for each
lecture] that comes and goes contorneando al objeto (following the path of the circular outline)
and it cannot separate itself from its return to the erogenous zone; the border: that is why we say
that the border is “contorneado pero nunca alcanzado” (always in “gravitational circular motion,
but never reached) [here ends what was on page 37 front, what follows is on the back of page 37
back] and as we said: that not being able to reach it is due to the symbolic castration of the sig.

There is a great deal of complicity between….[same set]

There is a moment – found in Asansi´s power point a sort of dialectic of seeing – of the appearance
of the new subject [same set] This will be interpreted in 2 ways: In the act of seeing the other the
other subject no recae sobre mi (does not get to become a subject for which the other is an object
of experience?) As in vouyerism, to see without being seen. Then you have what it looks like it is a
type of narcissistic self-referential moment of looking at oneself in the mirror, and if this happens
then he says that snuffers may participate from what you do. He offers the example of looking at
oneself in the mirror, not oneself, he wants the victim to look at one´s own body (they do not
want to encounter themselves in the object of their labor, the same is with Bruce but the
materiality of the way they torture his mind, so there is a shift aiming for the same thing) and this
looking at oneself does not imply another subject (the victim being unaware they are the object of
their (fantasy) experience) and now he wants to present the 3rd temporal phase (what looks like
the negation of negation): that of being seen, the one that implies another subject (they try
victims not to reach this point; I had written back then) This other subject has two senses: 1st) It
refers to the fact that the other: looks, hits, or induces anxiety in me, or, insults me. The 2nd) sense
is related to the formation of the subject. It is at this moment where the Other appears. If one
reverts back to the point where the child does not differentiate himself from the mother you will
notice that this is the point that Lacan refers as the child occupying a position of a-suje: the child is
a subject(as subject of a crown; God; infantilism…)

That is there is no one else besides him and the mOther. He says that it is a moment that due to
the role of the entrance of the n.o.f and symbolic castration the kid takes as his object of desire
the desire of the mOther (when this friction, competition begins). At this point the subject
emerges as a subject that means that in the terrain/geography of the drive is the apparently
passive voice the one that tells us (here what was on the back of page 37 ends what follows is on
the front of page 38) of the appearance of the Other. You can see how they organize this logic to
engage in incestuality, purposely, engage in extermination, fantasy, and incestuality: “To know
what is like to be God empirically” Also, you could use it to see how they work on the dialectical
displacement of “finger-ass” into “tic”
An Other foundational for the subject and this means that in the drive the appearance of the
Other is linked to a historical fact (experience; temporality of development etc) [1:14:39min] For
example; the Other that appears to “hit me” is linked to a structural fact; the fact of the
appearance of the imaginary phallus in the child-mOther relationship. It is at this point where the
Other that constitutes the subject appears. (el Otro fundante del sujeto) Where the subject stops
being a subdito (subject of the crown). It was important to tell you about all this, because this is
the stage at which the subject appears (he dismisses the new subject remark) [as an effect of the
sig? I had written]

Now the very important moment of the deconstruction of the active-passive couple arrives. He
quotes something from Lacan on how the drive relates to the heart & love, and along with them
the stomach (guts, intestines) he says this is from a text entitled “From Love to Libido”: “If we take
things to an extreme, and that extreme has to do with (relate to) the constant force (fuerza
constant; unyielding force) of which Freud speaks in his essay on the drive we could even say that
the ideal veil and the feminine ideal sketched in the psyche by something different to the
oppositionality of passivity and activity I was referring to earlier, and of which Freud speaks in the
drive.” Lacan says that we cannot speak of active and passive “the categories not fitting the drive,
because a matter of fact (en verdad pertenecen) they belong to that which is (designado,
designated) named by a term which we could call (here ends what was on page 38 front. What
follows is on the back of page 38) mascarada.

He says that there is a radical difference between loving oneself through the other and the
circularity of the drive. In which the heterogeneity expressed in (en la vuelta) found between the
departure and return reveals a crack, hole, gap in its interval” that is to say the circulartity vis-a-vi
the drive that Lacan – following Freud- is not (una vuelta) a continuous circularity. It is a circularity
with disruptions, and such disruptions are due to the signifier. He now wants to establish what is
common between: to see, and being seen. Lacan addresses Freud´s conclusions about the scoptic
drive with a certain degree of irony, or, simply making a completely ironic remark: “A person is not
the same thing as an object”, because an object can be looked at, and this is why the common
phrase “mujer objeto” is the reduction of a human being to that which they are not. Namely, an
object.

The articulation of the knot established by the going and returning of the drive can be easily
accomplished by changing the last (el ultimo enunciado – meaning drive?; I had written then) Into
one of Freud´s terms, because in reality the drive is about to make oneself be seen (hacerse ver)
the activity of the drive is concentrated upon that “hacerle”, “make oneself” this was the
connection (vinculo, link) that I was trying to establish between the constant kraft – fuerza
constante - and the impossibility to distinguish the active from the passive (1:20:00min) [back of
page 38] (here ends what was on page 38 back. What follows is on page 39 front)

Since we now know that the activity of the drives concentrates itself on “hacerse” “making
onself” etc he thinks that we are in a better position to clarify what this means by referring once
again to the field of the drives (1:20:17min) So, he says these are the reasons you do not find the
passive and active voices in the drives. The only thing that is present is the active voice, and this
leads Lacan to say: “The triad of the drives is not: to see, to see oneself, and to be seen” this “to
make oneself be seen” implies that that in the position of the drive when this woman analyzes
vertigo by Hitchcock she confuses the p.o.v of the camera with that of scotie, because we can see
that the point of view of the camera is not that of scotie, but rather Madelaine. The one that
presents herself as Madelaine who is the character that does “make herself be seen”. It would be
ridiculous to say that the feminine character gets: to be seen, is seen, she is not seen, she makes
herself be seen, because of the fact that she is part of a plan [remember they occupy a 53 septillion
centillion plus view disconnected from the symbolic. The call themselves “God”, do not want to establish social links; the
books, concert tickets issue that should have never existed: let them defend what they did. All pretty bad. This is not
It is in this sense
even close to the example here. See the analysis of the 3 times of the appearance of the subject]
that the scoptic function which says that the masculine subject is after the feminine subject forms
part of what Lacan calls “the mascaraed” [that which fools, tricks, engaña] given that the figure of
Madelaine is not followed (the object of following? I had written then), but rather she makes
herself be followed (more active role) So, this woman´s reading is false (Maulvy´s; James at
borders?) at least if it is attributed to Lacan (I think anyone is able to see through that size of lie
including him) here ends what was on page 39 front what follows is on the back of page 39.

Behind him a powerpoint slide that reads “The insistence of the demand” we are going to be
looking at the graph of the Other
The drives represent un impulso towards the real, and the fact that they never reach it is what in
this power point he calls the insistence of the demand, because the insistence is something tied to
the body´s orifices, and that in a number of ways produces a set of (results?) around (en los
bordes of that body) the borders of said bodies. En las cuales (what? The effects useful to establish
a criteria?) we could formulate a criteria that is established that is found on the first point of the
right hand column (of the power point) where Lacan says that the border is the pulsational real (lo
real pulsional), and the fixation of a drive is the adherence to an object, and the question arises
what would be normal for the instinct of a neurotic? In the case of obsessions it is clear that we
are talking about of a drive consistently sustained as a demand. And [same set] I insist on pointing
out that it is a demand not sustained by the will of the subject. (this ends what was on the back of
page 39. What follows is on the front of page 40)

This provides us with a reason as to why the drive in graph four is on the upper section, or,
unconscious register. If it were not to be there we would not be able to explain particular aspects
relating to the clinical practice and how that relates to specific pathologies in the anxiety inducing
sense of the term.

He says that later on you will see how the exit from the complex is achieved in whatever manner
is available to oneself (como se pueda; a situation of anxiety and pressure that does not allow
much room for reflection) He says that it is difficult for Lacan to say this explicitly, and he is not
denying that he has pointed out that it is difficult that there is a level of difficulty involved. What
he fails to make an emphasis on is that you have to get out of that situation however you can. He
says that he talks about it in impersonal terms, because no one sits down to reflect upon how they
will get out of it as I stated above. He says that before continuing with this he wants to draw
certain difference between Lacan and Freud as it regards a concept of the drive.

He says that in obsessive neurosis there is an idea of the drive as it being adhered to an object “in
which the subject tries to destroy the Other” (Lacan´s quote) He tries to destroy the object. He
says this is a good example since it is in this instance where we can clearly see the reason why the
drive is to be found (esta ubicada; its located) just precisely at the point, of articulation, of the
divided subject with the demand. (here ends what was on page 40 front. What follows is on the
back of page 40)

He wants to explain why the drive is represented with that specific matheme on the upper region
of the graph. Why is the drive articulated with the demand. That is the case, because this is the
point at which the body´s orifices are taken into account, and as a consequence of that it is the
point of entry of the subject. If $ represents the eclipse which the signifier has performed on him
we find it in a position of demand, because the point in the graph expresses need. We find it
represented as need in the graph twice. In conflictual relations (to themselves? Or the symbolic
order; I had written at the time) or relations in absence of equilibrium [same set] In this sense if
the subject demands, because need is that which decouples itself from the drive (or as soon as the
drive begins the process of non-identity to start this type of gravitational motion? As soon as it
goes off?) If the drive takes place then this drive will be turned into a demand. A demand that the
subject requires for the impossible satisfaction of the drive, because the only truly satisfied thing
[1:29:25min] as the process of the drive unfolds is the drive itself. The drive uses the subject so it
may satisfy itself. This is the reason why the drive is represented with the matheme on the upper
region of the graph [he reads this as the divided subject articulated with ◊ (deseo de…el Other? Or
its desire for the representative of the Other which is “a”?) the demand (articulada con la
demanda). It would be non-sensical to formulate the drive w/o departing from the demand, but
the demand, must be formulated in our explanation, for it to make sense, as that which constantly
and unyieldingly insists, and it is this consistent insistence that Lacan says “The orifices stink of it”
(consistent demand) (here ends what was on the back of page 40. What follows is on the front of
page 41)

He wants to comment on graph III on the unconscious. Someone asks him as question, and he
answers: Something that trouble the audience is that la enunciacion (the position of enunciation)
is found in the upper part of the graph, at the level of the unconscious. To make this clear to you I
have to explain 3 aspects or levels that are equally important. The graph does show that: 1st) The
one that enunciates is not the conscious subject. He says that there is a level of anxiety when
confronted with this situation resembling sophocles´s rendition of Oedipus and the Sphinx where
he does and says what the oracle says that he will do and say, and the psychoanalyst- what he
does- is to bring about a modality of greek understanding demonstrating the limitation upon his
own freedom the subject experiences as a result of this relation with the Other (oracle,
unconscious? Etc I had written then), and this is true in a sense, but it profoundly false since it is
Apollo the one who dicta (spells out in a bindinly authoritatively way: Law) and establishes. The
oracle itself is a plenitude (a fullness) a divinity [same set; hyatt + crew]

In this account the signified is left out of the picture. The signifier what it shows is that itself is not
like Apollo, what it would show that that which is in in the position of enunciation is an (here it
comes descending again, notice the reference to “God” sig) empty tomb (the decoy), and never
something that would represent an Apollo type fullness. This is why the accusation of Lacan as a
metaphysician is false.

2nd) We have to add something that is rather important (1:33:28min) here ends what was on the
front of page 41 what follows is on the back of said page) Just because the enunciation is situated
in the site of the unconscious it does not eliminate the duty to have the illusion of (having the
enunciation?) of being responsible for the enunciation, because such a capacity is an obvious
factor representative of certain equilibrium [same set] in which the “yo” of the psychological
subject may readjust in order so he may feel in control of the enunciation and his capacity to
readjust is rather important. Lacan does not endorse the erasure of responsibility for what one
says because of the inherent limitation of human consciousness (contrast or see if he refers to
seeing that the fundamental fantasy is an empty tomb, not to further identify with it, or readjust
to it. Maybe that is what he means anyways, but they expect this to be some point of egoic friction
for a fight for mastery etc)

3rd) Factor [same set] matiz or hue: Even though the primordial sig occupies an unconscious
postion does not mean that s(O) is not (arrastrado [same set]) or could not be dragged along by a
conscious sig, and this is clear enough, at this very moment I am (manjando) handling signifiers,
and I am aware that I am making use of them, and from this one is forced to conclude that s(O)
does not exist (in its decoy forming state, i(a)) if the sig does not exist. And [same set] ultimately
this is a message of whomever occupies this position of i(a) [ego-ideal] making use of this message
with a feeling (of illusory wholeness) that it is him that controls it (1:35:42min) He says that
psychoanalytical cure will be possible for some, but not all subjects, and that this is very important
to keep in mind. There are subjects that are unable to maintain that equilibrium, between, lapses,
readjustment, enunciation –enunciated etc. (here ends what was on page 41 back, what follows is
on page 42 front)

He presents the example of this loser that walks down the street repeating aloud a prayer to sta
Teresita. The loser is manejando/handling signifiers as a demand to his or her own suffering (that
probably refers to both your family, and your algorithm [same set]) that means that the
relationship between the enunciation of the plane of consciousness, and enunciation on the
register of the unconscious has been severed given that the illusion of control is no longer there.
[same set: connect this with their objective of exploitable infantilism for all those involved. The
misrecognition of Dei-Dei has probably already taken place] At least in the sense that this case of
the losers to be incestually enjoyed, and not to be identified with, brings forth with much clarity
than in the majority of mlb-dna-super-egoic-gozones that surround them that is to say the
majority of fools who want to identify with that which they cannot imitate: right here! Pointing a
finger to himself that is more to his liking.

The problem for Lacan is not between normal cases, and the cases of the losers, but rather anxiety
as it regularly appears and the meal of anxity in its unbearable, unlivable pain of a (self-erasure of
cause) situation that has taken place, because these are situations that do qualify as FDA approved
by consumption for those with a “just-a-product” existence that “feed on life” that is to say they
do qualify as unlivable.

In this sense we can say that the different hues, or 3 factors [same set], applied to the differences
of which we were speaking are all of equal weight. So, he once again, wants to make clear that the
relationship between conscious and unconscious desire is one of conflict. So, you get this non-
coincidence between what is desired in one level, and what is desired in the other register. And
[same set] this means that the relationship between “le je” and “le moi” will be characterized by
conflict, and what the Lacanian clinic aims to do is to deconstruct (he says desarticular,
disarticulate) the “le moi” once the effect of transference begins to take place. (here ends what
was on the front of page 42. What follows is on the back of page 42)

This is what differentiates it from the Freudian clinic of Anna F. [same set: different from the clinic
of Anita O.]or Lowestein. The Vienesse/America schools.

Comment from the audience: There is a trace of “je” whenever someone speaks. Asensi: A
symptom of “je” symptoms go from: loser non-mlb-dna OCD symptoms, all the way with the losers
who freak out because the geometry of things is not properly reflected in how they are organized.
But he wants to return to the issue of the matheme of the drive in the graph. On the graph on the
right hand side you see that it deals with the subjet, and on the left hand side with the message.
These are the reasons why “le je”, d, moi , and $ is found in $◊D (1:42:41min) It is the letter that
represents the subject. The Other and the Code which in reality they come first since they preceed
the production of the message, and that is why they are represented on the path of the subject
(that the subject must traverse?)

Then he says that the relation between subject and Other is crucial since there would not be a
subject without an Other. The Other constitutes the subject in that which it becomes (me
constituye en lo que soy) The way that these two terms, then, are related, and are needed for one
another is total. (kinda a total dependence between them) [1:43:38min] (here ends what was on
the back of page 42 what follows is on the front of page 43)

The subject then is as effect of the Other (after it interacts with delta I am guessing, and
retroactive signification) this is why you will see certain interpretations of Lacan as being a
structuralist, but as you may know structuralism is characterized by its rejection of the subject:
“The subject is dead, the end of the author” etc. [same set] this is not so for Lacan since the Other
has efectos perfomativos (perfomative effects) expressions which are found in pragmatics, and the
works of Butler. And [same set] we return to what we were saying early that the drive, the orifice
stink of the consistency of the demand then we are clearly not working with something that would
fall under the heading of logical, and/or formal since we are talking about the body, and its
orifices. And [same set] this is why we find the Autre on the right side, because it is a constitutive
formative factor, term/element of the subject (1:44:45min) [same sets]
If you recalled the entirety of the movements of graph 1 the result is the divided subject or the
barred subject, but if you notice the place occupied by the barred subject in graph one is now
occupied by I(O), and in graph 4 we can find it on the right hand side. He wants to account for
such changes. They happened, because in the 1st graph (1:45:22min) (here ends what was on page
43 what follows is on the back of page 43)

In the first graph we were dealing with how the sig affected the subject of pure need while in this
graph above we have the topology of the subject. Here the divided subject is found articulated
with a demand in the register of the unconscious. Even though the ideal-ego is i(a) is the ideal of
the barred subject just as m, and d, the barred subject would occupy both: a conscious and an
unconscious position. If you pay attention these esciciones, divisions, etc are advantageous,
because it encapsulates a great deal of complexity which we can reduce to a formula and it is here
that you can observe the virtues of the Lacanian system [same set] A representation from which
we can derive a great deal of complexity. This is the reason why Zizek uses Hitchock to frame the
concepts of the signifier and object-a so we may better be in a position to grasp them. (here ends
what was on page 43 back. What follows is on page 44 front) He says that he avoids the Z method
because you get something of a false impression, because the concrete examples fail to fit with
what he is analyzing today. So, his method is to use the graph and its notations, and then moves
onto concrete examples, while Zizek´s method is the reverse of this.

So, he continues to say that his examples kinda lie about the nature of the Lacanian discourse, and
are limited in this sense. But he is now ready to move onto explain the fantasma or matheme $◊a
the moment when the graph goes from the drive to desire and from “d” to $◊a (sujeto dividido
deseo del Otro as “a”? since it is the Other that particularizes itself in this “a” decoy) He says that
he will stop here, does what he does to you throughout with this, and move onto explaining the
borrromean knot. He says that if we conceptualize the real as that from which the subject is exiled
on his way to the symbolic then you could be lead to think that all registers are organized in a
diachronic way just as a story would (allusion to Zizek´s method I guess, but he has made clear that
he is going for ideology of a capitalistic organized situation so that might explain the difference as
well etc. Why my Hitchcock and Laca in and out books were burnt) (here ends what was written on
page 44. What follows is on the back of page 44

So, you would get this impression of the child starting from the real then entering into the
imaginary via the mirror stage, where Lacan localizes the issue of autism (infantile defenseless
ness), to finally enter the symbolic. He criticizes Kristeva on a number of grounds saying how she
thinks the ima register is closer to the real etc, but that he thinks it better to see the knot as the
topological structure of the subject. The symbolic is always already present in the real, and the 3
registers remain even after you grow up. He says that it is in Lacan´s insistence of the presence of
this 3 registers that you can tell his difference from Freud when it comes to the Oedipus complex.
(1:53:26min) For Freud you do have the: pre oedipal, oedipal and post-oedipal phases. In Lacan
you will not find those divisions. He talks about 3 temporal dimensions of the complex where the
1st temporal dimension does correspond to Freud 1st phase (1:54:20min) after he talks about the
non-Lacanian nature of Kristeva and others. (here ends what was on the back of page 44. What
follows is on the front of page 45)

He will proceed to explain the triad. So, he notices you have an object-a of the symbolic, an object-
a of the real, and an object-a of the ima. He says that one of the important things to point out is
that each register relates differently to object-a. So, it is not the same objeto-a desde lo real that
object-a from the symbolic, or, imaginary. Remember, object-a is a metonymymical linguistic
object señuelo with which the subject identifies (a gravitational point for the subject always
ruptured in Bruce´s speech through torture, also attempts on myself) and this object allows him to
have a feeling of being in contact of the totality that has been lost ɸ, but even though this is valid
for a baby of a few months, this feeling of totality also is carried by the time you enter the
symbolic. The case of the barred-subject, but this totality appears under a new shadow, a new
appearance, it is now the phallic semblance (shadow) of the real. If object-a is a decoy then it is a
point of focus for every subject. A point of fixiticity. The subject does not look anywhere else, and
that gaze encounters a problem, as I said before, because object-a is linked (vinculado) with the
real (of privation m-----i(a) vector) [here ends what was on page 45 front what follows is on page
45 back. Link this to the analysis of political speeches, and concerts that veil as art etc.]

He says the real represents the (false lost totality that you once had; “the god you never were” in a
sense) lost totality, and that is what the metonymical-linguistic object-a tries to particularized
desde lo real (from within the register of the real). It is supposed to represent the whole which is
clearly impossible to reach, but as he said before, the drive, is nevertheless, propelled in that
direction.

Analysis of object-a from the imaginary register

Object-a here is the form of an image that promises object-a. He says that it is object-a
represented by an image (signifying-imago?) that carries with it a force of attraction (link to Zizek´s
comments on Lacan in London, and towards the end of the puppet and the dwarf I believe)
seduction and capitation (190 evans [same set]) It presents itself at that point in the mirror stage
where the child beings to construirse el mismo (to construct himself, build himself up in recursive
manner as it were) he does this thorugh mechanisms of identification (differential, symbolic,
generative recursive?) and a matrix which is the function of the image. The (signifying it is me who
adds this he does not. The issue if Cashiers of being minimally symbolic and the chapter in NEL lo
mio, lo mismisimo mio; this recursiveness, self-reflexivity) image is of “geltastic quality/order and
upon which “x” throws himself” (de orden gestalgico y sobre la cual se precipita) From that point,
position, and function the image promises object-a. In the same way as when the manati morons
meet someone and the promise of meeting that someone(s) [see list of: from concerts to
murdered girlfriends etc] you anticipate happiness [Asansi meets them twice; when it happened,
and bang them into doing it, and them in the memory of the victim. He was hungry. All that
assassin c.v. calories he has been burning] Your imagination´s constructions as to what it promises
(exploited in the case of T.I.´s I had written then) (here ends what was written on the menu of
Asansi´s lecture page 45 back. What follows is on page 46 front)

But, the image is false it is empty, an emty but delicious tomb. The image quickly reveals that it
does not deliver in what it promises, and it is here that the symbolic takes place, because the
symbolic establishes a relationship with object-a starting from a readjustment (that was promising
him something all this time; hence signifying image) that takes place. The symbolic would say
something like “Even though the thief owe us a lot for the “party” [another image] and given their
absence of NFL-DNA qualities, we can now know that we are in epistemologically secure grounds
to precipitate towards the conclusion that it is their fault that the party has not been that
spectacular, but a “party” [a misrecognition] we have had nevertheless” The symbolic is like a
decoy meto-lingustic drink, that as fake 2pac says keeps them calm; it is a bar where you can catch
them, with bottles fit for sniffing, and puffing on the swish swishers until they get pacified by this
meto-linguistic deception. It was not the best La Carlota sex he ever had, but it was not bad either.
So, the symbolic does function as an element that gets that pussy image filled (rellena la imagen,
by the hundreds, all of them unwilling, unaware, and unconscious)

Now, object-a above has been rendered as an object in the register of consciousness: “parties” (53
septillion centillion+ gone) “sex” (same) [all words he has chosen. I am not adding parties or sex. I
am just applying to contextualize], but in the graph it does not appear in the register of
consciousness only, but on the upper section of it: so you have it on the lower register as i(a), and
on the upper register as $◊a. He says that you find the matheme of fantasy there, because if the
drive´s main characteristic is being sustained through a (linguistic? Or syntactical or ?) insistent
demand (well, you know it is silent, outside your register of consciousness as he said) [here ends
what was on page 46 front, what follows is on page 46 back]

He says that such an insistence has to be based upon something, and it cannot support itself upon
the void (el vacio) otherwise the subject would feel in a sort of ready for consumption abyss (se
sentiria en el abismo) the matheme for the fantasme $◊a is not expressive of a positive
representation of a fantasy. What it means is the logical articulation necessary for the subject to
position himself towards the direction of object-a, towards the direction of goce. It is for this
reason that it finds itself in the circuit that goes from $◊D towards “d” (desire; undetermined?)
towards the $◊a. Let us now examine the fantasma as long as we remember that the memory of
you being in that moi position prior to me saying that, and while I was getting ready to clockwise
myself into a master discourse of super-egoic goce, is now pussy filled with what you now owe
me. What I “Santa Claus You” keeps on looking at them for a few seconds, does not breath much.
Then he proceeds.

So, he compares both mathemes, and says that the matheme for the fantasy you have the s
barred as in the matheme for drive, but instead of being articulated with the demand it is
articulated with object-a. The also appear on opposite parts of the graph for a reason. You get it?;
a reason!. It is because that for which a demand is made in the case of drives. It is redirected
towards object-a, and that is why the circuit follows the path we lay out above in which the
demand in the drive goes towards object-a or goce as he mentioned. (Here ends what was on the
back of page 46 what follows is on the front of page 47)

Another way of saying this is that object-a is not desire, but the object-cause of desire. It is at that
precise point (simultaineity) that the fantasma appears ocupando una posicion inconciente
(2:05:13min) This is why Lacan says “the fantasma is a strategy to find an object that is adequate
for enjoyment” but even so he won´t be able to find it. Hence the constant demand, and
insistence borne out of these very failure. It is, because of this very same reason that fantasy is the
result of a set of logical articulations in which there is no room for any faculties that belong to the
ima register. It has nothing to do with spectres, and apparitions [same set]

So, the fantasma is the result of the crystallization of the repetition of the demand. The insistence
of the demand then encounters the fantasma in the path it traverses because it needs support in
order to find an object that will be adequate for enjoyment. This will allow us to formulate a
fundamental [same set] distinction in Lacan between goce, and pleasure. The difference that
appears after an analysis of the $◊a is the difference that appears between what takes place
between the boundaries of the sig (aka pleasure; I had written) and that whose aim is to step
outside the boundaries of the sig aka goce. (here ends what was written on page 47 front what
follows is on the back of page 47)

When Lacan says that “enjoyment (nos lanza) throws upon us the imperative of enjoying very litte
(de gozar poco)” this means that pleasure is limited due to the presence of the signifier. A
concrete example of this is that an orgasm does not last long [same set] (2:09:14min). So, he
wants to establish the difference between goze and pleasure, and equates goze with a feeling of
total enjoyment, he says it would be the absolute paroxysm of the body in a sort of
desmembramiento [same set: same meal] He quotes “It is interesting that in masochism the
position of jouissance is reached with greater degree of absolute intensity” [same set] because the
masochist plays with the fantasy of fragmentation and of pain as a way to destroy the limits posed
by the order of pleasure [same set. Link with NLS seminar] It is in this precise sense that pleasure
and goze go in opposite directions. Then he says that Roland Barthes is wrong in saying that there
is such a thing as a text of goze [same set] that he may have some insights, but have nothing to do
with Lacanian analysis. (I then wrote; use for T.I.´s and how they want to leave them w/o words)
To say this would be a really violent contradiction from which all of you must remain away if you
are interested in not being a moron vis-a-vi Lacan. Ok? There is only a text of pleasure not
Jouissance.

It is important to point out that if the fantasma is a strategy that is looking for the adequate object
of enjoyment (here ends what was on page 47 back. What follows is on page 48 front)
(2:11:14min) as we have said our definition of the matheme expresses that the unconscious drive
is after goze, but in the conscious register (se juega dentro de los limites del placer)(if) the subject
plays it plays around within the limits of pleasure. Pleasure as the limiting effects (delimitacion del
significante) of the signifier. What we said when we said that our desire (se acuesta) sleeps with
the Other what we meant was that, en tanto vinculado al placer pasa por el Otro, and it is here
that finds the limit, and it is here that Lacan´s saying on goze we just quoted came from (venido
desde un goce que funciona como un imperative). He then says that this does not contradict the
role of the fantasy as a support for the drive on its way to enjoyment.

Then he says that that is why in lecture 2/4 when he compared the matheme for fantasy and love,
he did not mean to say that love was not important for Lacan. It simply meant that it lacks with
regards to obtaining of enjoyment. It is a limited answer in the quest for goze. The strategy, says
Lacan, is a strategy for goze not a strategy for love even though (here ends what was in page 48
front what follows was on page 48 back) love and goze may accompany one another in situations
where one implies the other (los dos terminus en relacion de implicacion; as interpreted by….You
know what their answer would be: “Love has too many faces” as they tortured you in KS 2011)

He says, that moving onto perversion, found on the lower point of the right side (columm) he says
that perversion is one of the ways for the subject to constitute himself in the 3rd temporal phase of
the drive. He needs to go back to something that he said before so you may grasp this better. The
3rd temporal phase of the drive represents the appearance of the Other. This latter phase must be
understood in 2 senses. First in the sense of the Other I have been more than happy to introduce
to all of you today and for which you owe me regardless of what you have paid, or, that I posted it
you tube etc deal-ok-w/o-your- consent-good. The concrete other that charitizes: hits you, makes
you anxious, tortures you so you will not be the bitch you were before, and 2nd) in the sense of the
appearance of the Other understood as the Big Other. And [same set] that is why every perversion
[same set] is articulated with that Other that appears in the 3rd temporal phase of the drive. So, all
perversions, for them to exist, imply participation with the Other, ok!?, ok!?, why do you think I….I
am God! I am God!...damm it.

He then says that a perverse in exhibitionist mode needs for his pleasure “to be seen” He needs an
Other to look at him in “making himself be seen” (as in the case of the cars with the shotguns they
insist on you seeing or the snuffers on bikes for which they also insist on the same thing) He says
that it is here where we notice the difference between active and passive (2:15:15min) [same set]
(here ends what was on page 48 back what follows is on page 4-sexy-9 front. Notice the time of
the sexy with murder; infant murder)

He flashes you so you may see him. He “makes himself be seen” (use for victims of stalking and
electro-magnetic torture; I had written then) He requires the 3rd temporal phase of the drive. This
3rd temporal phase = “making himself being seen” (hence the psychopaths in KS, and for which
they call you there, plus Marcel Rodriguez Carvallo wanting to hear the voice of the victim) The
fantasma of the exhibitionist resides on the fact of being seen (de ser mirado por el Other; apply
to victims of stalking, perps that get more aggressive for no reason etc; I had written then), and it
is not the concrete other that needs to see him, but rather the B.O. (the raping of modesty in NLS
seminar?) (2:16:10min; snuff leader onto-quantum-mechanically-self-willed-pervert-snuff-raptist-
torturer; I had written then)

A story of Lacan´s (wanting to give some authoritative weight for what he is about to clockwise
drop) So, you get this guy he goes to school and flashes girls in school, then he goes after victims
of crimes against humanity, calls himself God, renames the apt “a church” and the victims Christ
and proceeds to flash the victims. This means that the B.O. that looks at him occupies a
transcendental position (the victims renamed “Christ”) so the exhibitionist articulates the
perversion in the appearance of an Other (por que es el el que se hace ver) because it is him the
one that makes himself be seen (all the self-reflexivity of that expression) (2:16:50min) He says
you get 2 things from this: It shows the appearance of the subject as soon as the Other
participates as a site of its foundation/self-construction (mirror stage above? Their hatred of “the
look” in Tour of Calculus etc?) and 2nd) It shows that when we talk about drives “the passive” does
not exist. On could think that the sadist is not the one that makes himself be hit, but rather the
one that hits [same set] here ends what was on the front of page 49, what follows is on the back of
it)

He says that the sadist tortures tortures, hits, because it situates itself in the position of the Other
[same set] He says that the exhibitionist wants to be seen by the Other, the sadist wants to be hit
by the other [they like it, like it], the sadist looks at himself through (a partir de) the eyes of the
Other. He is the other so he proceeds to hit, and in this case instead of two, we have 3 terms. The
sadist subject, the subject “being punished” (being a more satisfactory phrase; I had written then,
look at how this links with the Law sig, jail fantasy etc), and the Other represented by the sadist.
The Other with which he identifies to carry out the acts the acts of the dominant Other, and that is
why in perversion what is predominant is the 3rd temporal phase of the drive. He then insists that
perverse structure and any other depend upon the presence of the Other. In this sense we could
say that the paradigm of perversion, the paradigm of the 3rd temporal phase of the drive, is the
paradigm of every subject [same set] He says that it is not an easy extrapolation to make [same
set], because we know that we need the Other for the appearance of the subject, and that means
that one is forced (obligatoriamente) to come to the conclusion that the barred subject and the 3 rd
temporal phase of the drive, in one way or another (2:19:50min) [here ends what was on page 49
back what follows is on page 50 front] in the case of exhibitionism and reaching the point of
exhibitionism, masochism, vouyerism or sadism or not arriving at any of them, but at softer
versions of said positions [same set] For example: He says that the softer version (of
misrecognition to protect the Cartesian school of the tone) of masochism is sometimes found in
the register of the imaginary, but as we shall see (this analysis, expressed in this grammar, forms a signifying mode of
misrecognition, and protecting the “in-case-of-an-emergency-one” other form of misrecognition to further rationalize foundationless
psychopathy; so the fantasy grows in intensity as they regress in

the sequence.) it functions as a form of (misrecognition) masochism nevertheless (“Yo le dicto las palabras al
Otro; you know then that this is flat out wrong. Just for saying this; what “Heat Packing Assassin” wants to veil) then Lacan appears
again, they ain´t alone, (they need the help of another master) “The
erogenous zone of the masochist is the ear”
that which was very difficult for Freud to find, our Lacan, finds it in the ear.

The scoptic function continue here page 50 front.

He wants to clarify what it is that we mean by seeing, and in order to do this he will bring forth a
difference made by Freud between gaze, and vision. He will ask why do people have
hallucinations?, Why do they hear their victims finger-assing them? Why do they see them as
serial red dragon killers? (see Dylan envans I had written) Then he asks if the problem lies with just
a group of people that have the capacity to engage in correct vision, or, vision and others that do
not. He says that for Lacan this is incorrect. He thinks that what one calls seeing (ver) is
problematic, a problematic issue (same set) He mentions that in the scoptic drive we could say
that the object of the drive is the gaze as in the case of the exhibitionist, but that you may
remember that a while back he said that the paradigm [same set] of perversion in the case of the
exhibitionist gives us the key to how the subject functions, and this key to understand how the
subject functions (here ends what was on the front of page 50 what follows is on the back of page
50) may be seen in the following: So, he says that on graph 4 there is a thing {(que se ofrece como imagen)
which offers, and presents itself to us as a signifying image, that is to say, i(a) (notes on the side: what it says on his power point slide is
roughly “there is a fissure, escicion which offers itself so it may be seen and the mirada, or, gaze as a leftover that which offers itself up
He then says that the image is in relation to object-a, and this is so
as an image is what in graph 4 is i(a)}
because there is a escicion between the Gaze and the capacity to see (vista; the limits of cognition;
it may also refer to the position, perspective to which you may shift to see from that position) In
the case of the gaze it occupies the position of an object we could use the familiar expression that
it is (esta en pocision de significante) occupying the position of the sig, and the Gaze is – as Lacan
says in Seminar XX made sure to intend to save us from graspable truths – that which offers itself
up so it may be seen (la Mirada es lo que se da a ver) [the gaze of shock, terror, recordable
infantile experiences of death; I had written then) we could say it differently: it is that which calls
forth, and appeals to the capacity to see (lo que apela y llama a la vision; what will frame what the
victim will see?)

He then explains that if (the carfully organized) gaze were not to leave a left over, some remainder
(this ligusitically organized position) outside the field of vision, then it would be impossible to
(organizar la vision) organize the capacity to see. Said differently that which we desire to see (lo
que se desea ver) is the gaze of the Other to the extent it represents the lost object (the lost
phallic object?; I had written then, notice how abstract and signifying all this things are. The res-
cogitans; post-newtonian issues.) So, the function of the gaze is to organize my vision, my capacity
to see. The capacity of the subject to see. (which is what he does throughout to victims
everywhere including in lectures with the sinuous curve that organizes every example: victims are
this, they are that, etc) were it not for the gaze we would not be able to see; we would see
everything and enter into a state of hallucination (“predicting the future” as displacement?)
(density of the perceptual field; I had written. I wondered if this applied to the surveillance loon)
[here ends what was on the back of page 50; what follows is written on the front of page 51]

So, there is this thing that will be excluded from the Gaze (un resto en la Mirada) and this left over
will be the object which calls forth our attention, and tries and does interpellate us [same set]
(como [same set] objecto que nos llama y nos apela] he then says that this is the case since in
every gaze there is something he calls “el punto de fuga” there is always something that escapes
us something that we cannot see. He then says that Lacan says that if that point of fuga did not
exist we would not be able to organize our field of vision, we would not know what we would be
looking at, and the i(a) image, in graph 4, would collapse (the symbolic-ima-real rupturing of
Bruce´s speech, then they enjoy it, mock him for not being like him, and the issue of him asking “is
there someone here” etc. The issue of infantile insecurity) he then says that this is the reason why
the gaze counts as belonging to the order of the signifier (es el orden del significante) as occupying
the position of the Other (en calidad de Otro) embodied in an object or subject organizing
(discreticizing what I see) what I see. He then says that this is why the characters in Lacan´s
seminar on the purloined letter cannot see what is right next to them (en sus narices) namely,
because of the position, that implies the organizing gaze of the sig, that they occupy. For them the
letter becomes “el punto de fuga” and this means that if we pay attention to the games (behaviors
organized by rules; I had written then) we could understand that in reality all vision (gazes?) is
ficticious, that is to say, that what we see if far from being objective (a meta-language; yes; a not
all) there is no objectivity (no meta-language) when we see. [here ends what was on page 51 front,
what follows is on page 51 back]

Since the scientific gaze may now come under scrutiny since it itself is organized by the gaze this
allows Lacan to say that psychoanalysis is the only science that reaches the limit at which the
Gaze, and la vision intersect (cruze) one another [same set] (prior to crossing the boundary of the
Gaze? I had written then) and that cruze (that intersection) between gaze and vision disassembles
(deconstructs? I had written; there is a book on deconstruction and analysis I had downloaded
that is why I probably had that in mind) scientific knowledge. He then says how he will show how
the discourses function, sometimes producing arrogance, such as in the master´s, or, university
discourse (same set)

So, he wants to use exhibitionism and vouyerism as cases where the relationship between the
Gaze and the vision it produces may be more clearly seen. So he quotes Lacan as saying “There is
an attempt made to make appear in the field of the Other the gaze that is lacking in the Other”
(same set; from “some text”) he wants to explain the “to make appear…” part he explains that for
the exhibitionist it is crucial that the Other sees him (tiene que verlo) and that is why he makes
himself be seen (apply to victims of snuff stalking and electro-magnetic torture; I had written then)
(tiene que darle la Mirada para que el vea) he has to give the voyeur the gaze (as if it was a
contribution; he has to control what the victim may see) so the voyeur may see [here is where you
may get that talk about owing them] Then he says that if you do not Kegero face the exhibitionist,
if you deny them the look of horror or splitness, as if you were some blind man, then the
exhibitionist would not have a gaze that would organize his vision, and therefore his pleasure as
well. (he organizes the gaze of the Other, so he may be seen, so he can organize the gaze that will
organize this vision; as in the case of the mirror of seeing oneself; one´s own body Asansi
insisted?)

He then retroactivizes something Lacan says, with his comment about how if the gaze is not
produced on the subject occupying the position of the Other (the victim) then the exhibitionist
goes blind; the quote “The exhibitionist positions himself at the end of the ring of the scoptic
drive: to make himself be seen” (here ends what was written on page 52 front, what follows is on
page 52 back) The exhibitionist offers himself as a gaze (se ofrece como Mirada) so the Other may
see him, and in that way returns to the exhibitionist the gaze in which he has transformed himself
into (the implicit loop here, to grasp the generative particularities of the algebraic formula $◊a?)
(2:34:02min)The fantasma of the exhibitionist is the existence of the Other to the extent the Other
actualizesthe sought after gaze. He says that the pleasure of the voyeur resides in his constant
state of active surveillance to shock the victim.

So, he explains that Lacan offers the example of looking through a keyhole, and that the eye; in
isomorphism with the keyhole, the eye´s round edges, it outlines/contours, is that which cannot
be seen. It is that through which you see, and not that which does the seeing (no lo que ve). The
voyeur does not look at the agujero, at the form of the contour, of the eye of the victim to attain
pleasure. It is a contour, a hole, an agujero, but it is not the hole through which the exhibitionist
looks. He then brings forth Lacan to assert that the voyeur lies to himself at thinking that he wants
to look at something (creyendo {believing} que el quiere ver algo) he says that in reality the
pleasure of the voyeur is in being surprised, shocked, at being found out (ser sorprendido viendo;
to be caught (and the implicit induced surprised) looking) looking. It is not the actualization of the
surprise/shock, but the possibility itself that he may be caught; that the Other may see him (que el
Otro le vea), and el voyeur se pone como una moto [same sets] (really excited?) here ends what
was on the back of page 52. What follows is on the front of page 53. This possibility of being
caught by the concrete big Other is what allows to say that the voyeur constitutes himself on the
3rd temporal phase of the scoptic drive. So, we have symmetrical positions (undetermined)
between the voyeur, and the exhibitionist, but the difference lies in that the exhibitionist (llama a
que lo vean y con la Mirada del otro organizes his own visual field: asi descubre su verdadero lugar
{hiding from?} draws attention to himself so that he may be seen, in order for him to find the
place he occupies, and the voyeur only descubre su verdadero lugar en la sorpresa de ser
descubierto. Truly gets to find out the place he occupies when he experiences the surprise of
being caught unawares. For the voyeur it is in the possibility of being caught unawares, in that
possibility alone, that he finds the gaze that organizes his own visual field (abstracting, hiding,
removings himself from this gaze, internalizing the b.o. in other words, so he may do what he
wants to do?, making the b.o., shame, a type of object-cause, and in a sense, the way it ought to
be, and what snuffers clearly exploit?) [here ends what was on page 53 front what follows is on
the back of page 53] These comments could be extended to examine sadism and masochism
(2:38:17min)

Question: What about the erogenous zones of masochism?

Answer: he says that Freud had problems finding the part of the body through which the
masochist enjoys, and the same goes for the sadist. For Lacan, in the case of the masochist, it is
the ear since he gets to tell the sadist what to scream at him (notice the inversions here, just as in
reflection of life in Hegel, and the semiotic square) the masochist knows what the Other has to tell
him. He says that in torture the communicational pact has broken down, he says that the objective
of torture is to not only control the gaze, but torture to the point of destroying it, and this is why
you see all these loser victims of torture, like, being all like, into hallucinations, like, they cannot
trust snuffers, their loser insistence that snuffers are not God things like that (the serious point of
this is, both, but that if someone hallucinates it might not be for endogenous reasons) He then
says that unlike torture the gaze is carfully organized, but not through vision, but through telling
the Other what it is that the Other has to say. Then he says that the sadist hears the voice of the
Other. He then insists that Lacan says that the ear is the only agujero that cannot be closed
(sealed), at least not by itself. Asansi says that one of the things that he enjoys the most is
reflecting on how they are God, and how the virgin students at the Other end think that they are
impregnated through their ears, and this is why he a firm believer in the story of the virgin Mary.
The way his dei-dei theology finds concrete modalities of expression in everyday life. He insists
that all of you are in a masochist position: liking it liking it Mary style, and that the angel, him, is in
the position of the Sadist. (but how is she, the students, organizing, dictating, what he will say if
they are “virgin”?)[that is what is found at the end of page 53 back, and here ends section 3/4)
Section 4/4 Sadism and Masochism

So, the subject for today will be ɸ or the imaginary phallus. He then shows formulas for desire that
you cannot see; the options then are $◊a, or Desire = need-demand, and he says that all the
terminology that is found in it will be found in graph 4 of desire. He adds the extra element of ɸ to
the graph.

He says that all the formulas appeal (for their validity) to the 5th graph, and then says that Lacan
says that the graph represents what takes place in the field of the subject where each element
situates, demonstrate, the set of factors [same set] that intervene in that (conflagration: inflamer,
quemar) conflagration of the element: espacio-sujeto; place (of inscription?) subject. He says that
Lacan places the unconscious on the upper section of the graph, because the repressed sig, the sig
of the lack of the Other, is unconscious (ocupa una posicion inconciente), and in Sausseure´s sign
we find the signifier below, and the signified above. He then reminds them of the beginning of the
lecture of how he explained by using Lacan´s algorithm for the signifier: S/s modifying fields and
meaning that S would acquire throughout. He says that his graph cannot be considered a map, a
topology, but not a map (however he defines map; he does not) although the subject in Lacan
must be thought of as a space (a terrain I am guessing; I wrote back then) (this ends what was on
page 74 back, what follows is on the front of page 75)

So, he explains that in the space of the subject you find all these elements, and each one
intervenes, has a function a type of role, activity in this space, and this is what the graph
represents. Then he quotes Lacan to back this up “In reality, the graphs have as an objective to
(ubicar) be able to locate (en sup unto) [in their respective position?] the set of elements that
intervene in the field of the subject” graph 5 is similar to graph 4. He then explains, or, shows all
the elements that are the same in graph 4 and graph 5. He then explains that the delta subject has
been replaced by the divided subject, and wants to quote Lacan on this very point “In reality, the
mythical subject. It is called the mythical subject of pure need, precisely, because of its mythical
character, because as such it does not exist” it is a presupposition, an assumption. He then
explains that placing the barred subject at the beginning (of this graph?) is explained by the
following: the subject is always barred from the beginning there is not an account of the subject
that transitions from unbarred delta to barred subject position even though the starting point, the
realm inhabited by the living entity (que el viviente habita) (here ends what was on the front of
page 75 what follows is on the back of page 75) is a dimension that does belong to the field of the
real, but he says that it is a field of the real vigilado (surveilled) by the signifier, or, surveilled by
the imaginary phallus. He says that he has found authors that draw an equivalence between the
signifier and the phallus. He also says that he has an issue with books that say that the symbolic is
equivalent to the signifier, law, and the symbolic = phallus equivalence. He then says that he is not
all correct in putting it like this, that to an extent the notion of the symbolic contains within itself
all mentioned attributes, but not every attribute (to the point of excluding other registers I am
guessing is the serious part) The sig and law occupy the same level (7:54min), but we cannot say
“the phallus is reduced to the signifier” ɸ is a sig, but it is not reducible to it. He says that the
divided subject at the beginning of the graph 5 is important because that which bars him does not
have a place in the history of the subject (not part of his temporality? Appears a-temporal? And
how this might be exploited by religion) then what follows is a critique of Kristeva that does not
include minimally symbolic within the imaginary etc. (here ends what was written on page 75 back
what follows is on page 76 front) then he continues on how this author develops her theories on
Freud´s views on the development of the child. He criticizes her book “The revolution in poetic
language” (I do not know if it exist, but I do know whom he protects, this is almost like saying:
make sure to read it) [here ends what was on page 76 front what follows is on page 76 back]

On the back of this page is where he throws a tantrum, because the day before I wrote this I had
thrown into the garbage disposal all those dvd´s audio-visual propaganda for snuff my parents,
under torture and threats of death, were forced to shill for, before they wanted to organize our
gaze to “make themselves be seen” I remember watching some of them and each read “for your
consideration” wanting to purchase crimes against humanity, and the murder of 12 girls with it.
So, the victim by accepting this establishes a false, ideological equivalence, and turns them into
Gods. Yes, your own glorification of your c.a.h. was worth crimes against humanity. The child says
“quiero devolver golpe por golpe” which was something Trotsky is supposed to have said in an
article on wsws. So, they are your victims. He says that Lacan places the divided subject at the
beginning of the path of desire, because for him there is not that sharp of a difference between
these pre-oedipal, and post-oedipal (as he says he talks about 3 temporalities etc) He says that
Lacan is not very Freudian (poco Freudiano) with regards to the Oedipus complex. (14:20min)

So, he says that people have problems with Lacan, other analysts, because he turned the Oedipus
into an element (structural relationship) where there is “no outside of it” (as in the imaginary, real,
and symbolic register I am guessing). For him it is not an identifiable phase, as in having “Oedipus
fever” [same set: he actually says this. Saving that ideological santa] Oedipus is a collection of
symptoms that are indicative of the presence of Oedipus (here ends what was on the back of page
76. What follows is on the front of page 77)

So, you have Freud´s account to the complex, Melanie Klein´s, and Kristeva´s, but Lacan begins to
develop his from a contradiction he finds in Klein´s account (15:50min) He says that in the quote
you will find an applied version of his preference for interpretation rather than (exploitable)
understanding [the usual complaint against victims; just let us snuff exterminate you, say this, fulfill all my orders and call us God,
that is why you are attacking us as he said. There is this horror that victims may actually see what the snuffers insist on them seein; and
discover the type of psychopaths they are, and that they (the snuffers) may find themselves in the product of their barren labor, even
(17:43min): This
though they agree with the victim from the outset that this is so they will themselves into displacement.]
agramaticality what it does is to separate the (querencia) that which is wanted or related to need.
To separate the need from the demand which is found in (el decir) the saying Desire = Need –
Demand. A way to read desire. I have a number of graphs with notes on them for which I will leave
room. (here ends what was on page 77 front. What follows is on page 77 back)

Lacan asks “could there be a neurosis before the adveniment of Oedipus?” This was what he calls
“a hot debate” for psychoanalysis in those days: neurosis not related to dad, but to conflicts with
the mOther. (19:35min) Klein thinks the root of the problem does reside with the mother child
couple, but Lacan´s critique is as follows: “Subrayo la paradoja esencial para nuestro tema de hoy
del testimonio que constituye el testimonio de la señora Klein. En una obra como en toda
produccion a base de palabra hay dos planos. Esta por una parte lo que dice, lo que formula su
discurso, esta lo que quiere decir en tanto que su sentido separando el quiere y el decir se
encuentra su intención” that is to say the intention of the subject is found in el “querer decir” (in
the wanna say) what the subject intents is found in what is said, presents us with this split
between desire (unconscious) and desire found in the register of consciousness (20:38min)
because this “want to say” represents the element (yo pretendo) I am pretending to demand in
the register of consciousness (21:10min) [truth is in the unconscious] but what I demand (pero,
que sea lo que demando en el plano de lo conciente) on the register of consciousness is something
that will be seen on the 1,3,2 fissure we were dealing with. What Lacan tells us is that in the
discourse of Klein you can also see this. He treats Klein as a patient. (I had written then: what about if you
apply it to his?, but clearly their horror of the victim doing this was revealed much later, given their suspension of n.o.f , and the
and this
constant projection of their i(a)´s the Sigs from which they particularize, floating sigs, the mnemic traces garbage etc)
gives us the guide, and rule of interpretation. How the interpretation of a discourse functions.
How it must be carried out from a psychoanalytical point of view (…”but we want all of it”, as fake, resurrected
Lacan says in Ecrits about Charlotte (decoy elementary school days…) They also have a video of him being victimized by the victims. The
victim with skewed viewed long hair holding a jar full of milk, and pouring it on top of his desk while he gave a lecture. Talking like a
moron about the socialist revolution etc, clearly the victims could do without it, living their lives flawless in this here “realistic ideology”
of the capitalist mode of exploitation.) [here ends what was on page 77 back what follows is on the front of
page 78]

Asansi continues: what the author wants to say – Lacan says – apart from the fact that we will not
be able to figure this out, it is very likely that it will not match what he does say and this destroys
any hermeneutical system (two things that are worth pointing out: the “pfui” of the snuffer, but this is expressive of their
structure, and the other the insistence upon the lack of identity between the sig, fundamental fantasy and real, the issue of sexual
Every hermeneutical system depends on how to understand the Other, and then he
difference etc)
asks rhetorically: who is this Other? The Other understood as the one that speaks to me? The
subject that speaks through me? Or the Other that speaks in spite of the Other (the other as
lacking, not sanctioning the totality of need, lapsus, symptoms etc) the Other as Code to which I
should pay attention?[same set: too worried for no reason, that is weird] Una parte sensible de la
obra de Lacan is based on written texts. The case of screber was based on (the c.a.h and hence
Nazi algorithm?) of “Screber” not personal contact [same set: “empiricism”] The difference
between what is said and the “want to say” will always be in need to be brought forward and this
gives us the rule for how one should approximate discourse regardless of: the kind, genre of the
text etc [same set: movie; horror, western, tragedy etc] (23:33min)

Continues to quote Lacan “Y ademas no seriamos analiticos en el sentido en que trato de hacer
que se escuchen las cosas aquí. Sino supiéramos que (something) habece (obedece? Habiece?)
dice un poco mas que eso beyond that “Want to say”… “La obra de la señora Melanie Klein dice
cosas que tienen importancia, pero solo atraves de las contradicciones internas de su textos
suceptibles de ser criticados como en efecto lo han sido” besides all this we have those moments
of what is said w/o you meaning to say it…the true question is to find out what is it that this thing
that is being said w/o you meaning it actually is. Klein when she starts (here ends what was on
page 78 front. What follows is on the back of page 78) from the assumption that there is a kind of
pre-oedipal sexuality whose main feature is the link between the child and the mother. What his
axiom is saying is that beyond what she wants to say Lacan will say the following “Lean su articulo
sobre el Oedipus, en el describe una etapa extremadamente precoz del desarrollo de la etapa
llamada de la formacion de los malos objetos anterior de la falsa llamada paranoide depresiva
relacionada con la aparición del cuerpo de la madre en su totalidad” He says that this latter part is
of interest “La aparición…” [same set; expecting it huh?] mOther as first Other for the child
(25:30min) “si nos fiamos de ella el papel predominante en la evolución de las primeras relaciones
objetales infantiles lo desempeña el interior del cuerpo de la madre” this would sort of fix the
attention of the child “uno constata con sorpresa que se basa en dibujos”, now the quote that
follows deals with “that what is said” Lacan: “ basándose en dibujos haciéndose toda una
reconstrucción (26:00min) de la sicologia del niño en esa etapa la señora M. Klein nos manifiesta
que entre los malos objetos presentes en el cuerpo de la madre se encuntra precisamete el padre.
El padre representado en forma de su pene. Es ciertamente un ayazgo que merece que le
prestemos atención porque se situa en las primeras etapas de las relaciones imaginarias con las
que pueden ponerse en función las relaciones propiamente ezquizophrenicas y psychoticas en
general” He then claims that it is obvious a very important observation then the issue of the first
interactions with the mOther “This contradiction tiene todo su valor cuando la intención de la
señora Melanie Klein era ir a explorar los estadios pre-oedipicos cuanto mas se remonta en el
plano imaginario. Cuando mas trata de apartarse de lo Oedipico mas constata la precocidad de un
tercer termino paterno [same set; here ends what was on page 78 back, what follows is on page 7-
sexy-9 front] Y ello desde las primeras fases imaginarias del niño” He says that Lacan demonstrates
that it is paradoxical to attempt to try to investigate a pre-Oedipal stage in which the father is
absent (under the specifications of Freud? The limitations of his approach? The father must be
somewhere then during this pre-oedipal stage even though it is pre-oedipal? Like minimally
symbolic I guess) (28:02min) So, he says that Klein talks about a place where the bad objects are
found, types of object that awaken phobic reactions in the child, and that among them, the most
important, is the representation of the father inside the mother. So, Lacan is saying she is telling us
more than what she is saying. This is the structure of the type of analysis he applies to Klein´s text.
What Lacan discovers is that the Freudian theory and those that subscribed to it before and after
Deleuze and Guitarri are wrong. Lacan then concludes the the complex is not a stage that will
arrive at some point in the development of the child, but it is rather a constant. So, he goes onto
saying that you do not encounter 3 oedipal phases, but rather 3 temporal phases, and that the
latter 3 constitute the pillars of Lacan theory (29:54min) It is really important to understand that
Lacan´s move here lead us away from the literality of the presence of the father what he is talking
about is the “name of the father” as a function, and this concept has a great deal of importance in
Lacanian theory. Then he asks what is the role of the: permissive, authoritarian, capullo type dad
etc? (here ends what was on the front of page 7-sexy-9 what follows is on the back of page 7-sexy-
9) The key here is to understand that the name of the father is a metaphor (its functioning implicit
if the formulas for metaphor he displayed above?) I will leave some room for the formulas for
metaphor, and metonymy he writes below
He says that the name of the father is important, because if you foreclose it you run the risk of
psychosis (to push you closer to it I guess; amplifying paranoia until you get there I guess. Then
they can bring the mengeles in) He says that the paternal metaphor has a performative dimension
that locates/positions the subject. It allows us (que nos permite ubicarnos) to encounter what is
our position within a discourse (the point of gravity that generates the i(a) that will allow for us to
have the coordinates of where we are) understood as support of (lo verbal) that which we
considered verbal mode of communication. Understanding by this speech that allows for the
elaboration of social relations (connect to victims) well defined social relations in which everyone
occupies a position (incorporate how this has been rearreanged by game theoreticalizing social
relations under Capitalism), and this includes the sexual position (see military, schools, bands,
politicians, media above page 51.) All of the above will depend on what one does with the paternal
metaphor, then he says that if you are straight then you (trabaja la p.m.) relate to it: identify with
it, use it (within the limits he specifies as to agency), work with it in one way, and if you are gay in
another, if you are perverse: straight or gay then you work with it in another, same for neurosis
and psychosis. Then he says that it is true that at one point he thought homosexuality was a type
of curable disease (here ends page 7-sexy-9) he says that this has shocked people (35:45min), but
if you read where this is found “formations of the unconscious” he is talking about “conflictive
homosexuality” of the “closet” or “anxiety” giving variety. He would never say that analysis is
about liberating the unconscious desire of the patient, or, that such is its fundamental objective.

He moves onto the 3 temporal phases of the Oedipal complex. (Dylan evans page 127) (38min)
and the imaginary phallus. He says that it is within this framework that we will understand the
paternal metaphor, and why psychosis is the result or forclusion.

Oedipus is a structure that preceeds the subject (the pre-existing social order regulating kinship
strucutures?), and awaits for the subject´s arrival (apply to your case, and Bruce; the absence
awaited, the incestual exploitative violence) As soon as you arrive the complex is there on top of
you as soon as you arrive. 1st temporal phase: is formed through the essential connection with the
mOther where she occupies the role of the first Other. If you accept Klein´s report of the father
being in the body of the mother then this means that the register of culture is already active from
the very beginning in a veiled sort of way. In this first phase you have that “the father” and the “
phallus” functions operate upon the subject in a veiled way (in a veiled kind of way) (41:02min)
[here ends what was written on page 80 front what follows is on the back of page 80]
He then explains that in the mirror stage “x” desires the mother because she is the one that
dicta/establishes/applies the law [same set with dicta] This is important because it is through it
that we will understand the father function and the imaginary phallus. One of the things that it
means is that these terms relate to the Law. The law as applied to the child by the mother is what
allows for the metonymy of desire (“no do this, no it is not that, yes that is good, no it is not good
now only when you do this and that but not this etc”) to take place to allow the child to begin to
move to attempt to position himself as the imaginary phallus (what she pays devoted attention
and what is guided by is the Law) It is the child that tries to occupy that point of fixicity (center of
gravity as metaphorish?) Occupying this position is what we call the imaginary phallus.

He derives the following formula from the 1st phase: (you cannot see it on the video) mOther
posses the phallus, if “x” were not phallus or attempt to occupy this position of the phallus, one
runs the risk of autism (lack of sociability etc) because if autism represents a problem related to
identity, and henceforth with a relation to the world (identity based on relation to the B.O.; use for
victims of snuff torture and stalking; I had written then) the problem of autism is that the child is
not in that search for occupying the position, or unable to attain a defined position of the phallus
to the mOther.(why they isolate torture victims from their family members worldwide) the idea is
for them to lose the capacity to relate (o.s. so the target is constantly insecure, and exploit normal
paranoia, intensified it until they say, while enjoying, “not-us” apply to what they did in KS 2011; I
had written then). If the mOther has the imaginary phallus this presupposes that we find ourselves
in a stage where we can find a number of neurotic phenomena (here ends what was written on
page 80 back, what follows is on page 81 front) due to a conflictive relation with respect (vis-a-vi)
to the mOther, because he says that the problem arises, because the child´s asymmetrical relation
with the mOther is that of subdito someone completely trapped by the mOther (44:53min) [and
from Kings they want to call themselves “God” etc] So, he says that this absolutization brings forth
anxiety in the child and in order for him to get out of it he has to have the capacity to symbolize.
He must be able to use language (Nature of Trauma and w/o words: Zizek on Violence book page
4. It is really fucked up, but addresses this in a serious manner) He says that the mode of
symbolization that he will be in need of is his capacity to symbolize the presence and absence of
the mOther once he is able to do this he will be able to bring control over the situation (clearly
relatable to Bruce when he asks her when she is gonna be back; all this anxiety etc if she does not
tell him etc). The idea is that the symbolic will bring forth a liberty to the child he has not
experienced, but this does not strip/eliminate the libidinal investment made by the child onto the
mOther. That libidinal investment made by the child will lead to problems later, and when this
happens we enter the 2nd temporal phase, and this stage corresponds very well, Lacan says, with
what Freud writes in Totem and Taboo (47:1-you-know-what-5min) (here ends what was on page
81 front. What follows is on page 81 back)

So, it deals with the castrating father not allowing those modes of libidinal investment as a way to
set up a relation to the mOther, and by doing so he demonstrates that he is the one that carries
the imaginary phallus, and not the mOther. When he prohibits incestual investments (when they
detect it is reaching that point) what he does is instaurar, to set, the Law that is the foundation of
culture. This is a structural function that goes beyond the figure of masculinity. (48:31min) The
particular male father is also submitted to the n.o.f etc. This structure is expressed in the
prohibition that leads to the conclusion, demonstrates, that she does not have the phallus. So, the
one from whom the father takes the imaginary phallus is the mother, and not the child. Imaginary
and symbolic castration then take place in relation to the mOther. So, he displays how if the p.m.
is such then what is taking place is the substitution of one signifier for another. There is a relation
of analogy between both sigs, and what will happen is: I will leave some room for what he does
(50:14min) (here ends what was on page 81 back. What follows is on page 82 front)

De lo que se trata is that in the imaginary representation of the child in the 2nd temporal phase
when the father threatens castration, the substitution only takes place at the moment the child
realizes that it is the father that holds the phallus and not the mOther (enabling the switching of
positions. I guess) and this substitution is experienced as forced upon the child. It is not something
with which he is on a identity of oneness etc.

The critical phase of Oedipus: the child does not know whether to accept the substitution of the
signifiers. He feels himself to be at a crossroads: whether it is the father who has it or the mother
who has it? how to decide in a sense. The substitution is representative of a condensation where
the father is positioned (the sig) on top of the mother (their ego will erase the clarification to
enjoy) I will leave some room to draw the formulas below;

The plus signification of the p.m. relates to the moment where the child has acquired the Law as
an element that organizes all the signifiers (metaphor, acquisition of meta-function implies a
substitution, ordering, combinations) So, he says that prior to this we had equated the phallus
with the signifier, but in a metaphor we always obtain a plus of signification, of meaning. If the
operation of the p.m. is characterized by a set of particular operations (the algorithms of the
metaphor) characteristic of producing surplus signification we have to find this plus de meaning
produced, and that plus of meaning relates to the plus of the signifier (here ends what was on the
front of page82 what follows is on the back of page 82)

So he wants to represent the paradox of the imaginary phallus being the sig, and at the same time
the sig is not being the imaginary phallus on graph for which I will leave room.
So, he says pointing at the power point, but you cannot see (I think that such is the point) that this
is the surplus of signification that one gains with the metaphor, and this surplus of signification is
what we call the imaginary phallus. He says that Lacan literally says that the metaphor is that
thorugh which we may obtain tranquility (absence of anxiety) which is not much but when we find
this peace, and enjoy it it is due to the phallic signifier just mentioned. He says that if you foreclose
this totally then you get (an ungravitationally warped symbolic space?) a kind of disorder speech
of psychosis, like Screber could be very sexy, and productive with the signfiers, but you noticed
that his speech, like that of the lady who prays out in the street, unfolds in a disorganized form (like
living unconscious formations? Actually living according to them? Stalkers plus? Is that where the snuff leader tries to push them? That
was my impression; not psychosis, but there is a noticeable tendency to push them within that continuum. To intensify it etc: “and just
Then he asks “Que es lo que permite el falo?” (what is that which
have fun with it, laugh etc” not good)
allows for the effectivity and presence of the imaginary phallus? You have the triadic relationship
witht the mOther, the father, the child having to figure out in a position of anxiety, at a crossroads,
who has the phallus, the decision etc) [here ends what was on page 82 back. What follows is on
page 83 front]

He says that the phallus is what allows for the bringing together (cohesionar, bringing gravitational
stability in a sense; abusing of it) the signifiers in the terrain of discourse. This very same phallus is
also responsible, is what enables the subject of the imaginary to feel that he is capable of asumir,
adopt the position of taking responsibility for the present order (cohesionado) of the signifers. It
allows him to keep and sustain a discourse that he feels as if it was (already?) ordered enabling
other like him to experience the same. So, he lays this down, a story, about some dude named
traitorpoldo maria something, and when people would ask him about his poetry, he would hide
behind a desk (I think he says underneath a desk: in front of some audience in some theater
similar to his) and begin to scream “I am down, and only care for Coke” and it was (not until I
convince you of this and maria you into it) not until you gave him a coke that he would give you
answers to which you already knew the answers. Kinda weird behavior. Traitopoldo (Leopoldo)
would give you this vibe that he lost touch with the sig, he did not, but there was a sense that
there was a lot grub in this situation of displacing the source of the rupture of a communicative
pact in a finger ass fashion onto this dude. That which had been lost does not induce a feeling of
anxiety on individuals (remember his comment on schidzo, or, psychosis and anxiety early on)
[same set] like him that have this experience, but what is crucial to maria you into it is that what
has happened is that the impossibility of giving order to the discourse emerges from the absence
of this element in the field of the signifier. I will leave some room for the graph I wrote;
The phallic signifier is: 1st) What secures the signifying chain; that which allows the signifying chain
be what it is, what allows (lo que le permite atarse a un significado) attach himself to a signifier,
and a signified (the retroactive construction of the metonymical object through signification?)
what mediates between signifier and signified is phallus, because it is what secures coherence
between them (the continuous operation of syntactical, and semantical procedures) The phallus
(here ends what was written on page 83 front. What follows is on page 83 back) is in the same
position as that of the gaze in section 3 of 4 (1:01:05min)

So, you have the gaze as that which organizes vision, but also has a point of fuga. Every gaze has a
focal point and outside of it things are kept out. This capacity of the gaze to order, and arreange is
what allows us to understand what the function of the phallus is. So, the phallic sig occupies this
position (and serves a similar function) of the gaze (why onto-quantum-mechanically-self-willed-
psychopaths concentrate so much on the gaze; I had written then). So he says that were you to be
able to see the way the billion dollar surveillance industry sees then you would probably being to
hallucinate (them getting all that material and using the “God” signifiers?) He says that in
instances such as this the phallus/gaze is absent (implicitly no symbolic castration: hence the ever
presence of a sense of potent, infinite like, incestuality displaced onto the victims) (1:02:14min) He
says that in a similar way the voice occupies a phallic position. What the gaze is to vision, the voice
is to what we hear (phonetic structure?) and the same thing happens, were the voice not to frame
what I hear then you would get this case of endogenously hearing “everything” (already
transmitted; look at the antennas outside; thought signals only for humans, millions of them,
thoughts, images etc). So, phallic signifier is that which serves the function (occupies a position)
that enables a substantive degree of order (1:04:45min) He wants to quote Lacan: “This may seem
to contradict the graph of desire, and the graph of the Other, because ultimately the phallus can
be found in the formulas of desire” Then he asks why does the phallus occupy the position of the
signifier of the Other? He says that Lacan says that the phallic sig is what introduces something in
the Other (here ends what was written on page 83 back, what follows is on the front of page 84),
and that which introduces is a bar. He actually says that the phallus is the bar of the Other. (B.O.)
which seems like a contradiction (1:05:45min), because the phallic sig is the element that
introduces as much order as it generates lack (the absence of a meta-language) There is a small
graph that I have written for which I will leave some room

He calls this lack a sort of point of fuga “escape” because the sig is the sig of which Lacan says
there is always a missing sig. What he means is that “a sig is always lacking” (the issue of sexuel
difference) It is similar to the point we were making about the gaze how it organizes the field of
vision, but once organized there are things that are left outside of it; a sort of blind spot. You are in
the position that once you frame something, you preclude the option of “seeing it all” the same
goes for the voice: what I see and hear are lacking then (this ends what was on page 84 front what
follows is on page 84 back) and that in the register of the sig, I find myself as a lacking, divided
subject, because my need, delta, has been sanctioned. For him the point to concentrate on is this
situation of remainder. In the upper section of the graph you have the sig of the lack in the Other,
and that is S(O), so the code cannot sanction the subject in an absolute manner, leading to a
remainder (so the first sig lacks; that of the Code, floating sigs; democracy, nation, freedom,
socialism, capitalism etc), and then you get the sig of the lack of the other that, as a sig, by
necessity also lacks, and it will be lodged in the s(O) as it descends from the upper part of the
register (the transcendental illusion: which is in non-identity, and cannot be a meta-language
position. It does not offer a transcendental signified truly. Since it is a fantasy it is appearance as
such, so it lacks as well)[that is how I interpret double lacking]

But then he continues by reminding the audience of the difference between universality, and
particularity, and proceeds to explain why does the sig lack, and he says, because the phallic sig
occupies a position of center of gravity of sorts (he does not say this I am adding it from Zizek´s
interpretation, analogies) it is higher in the higherarchy of sigs, and this is the reason it lacks in a
double manner, then he talks about how a fundamental feature of Lacanian analysis is that every
sig lacks. He says that if there were no lacks in the sig then you would not get desire which is a
punto de fuga (an escape point away from the attempts of the capacity to absolutize? As the kid
looks for relief from anxiety?) since the sig´s operation effectuates a number of things upon delta
a differenction takes place between need, and demand (1:13:17min) I had written that it lacked in
its particularizations, but also as a meta-language. What we call the phallus (here ends the back of
page 84 , and what follows is at the beginning of page 85) is both at the same time the point of
fixiticity, and the point of weakness. (1:13:55min)

When Lacan says that “the price paid by the masculine subject in the moment in which he
proceeds to identify with the phallus” (which will be looked at in the 3rd phase) “is the lose of
contact with his penis” this means that the subject is alienated with respect to that piece of his
body similarly to the rest of his body. He comments upon the inability to will erections, you have
to go through a process of sorts, before it reaches excitation, and this is indicative of what he is
talking about this separation, this absence of absolute control in absolute identity with that part of
your body. The he repeats that the phallic sig (he just says the phallus I add the sig part) is the
function of order. It is that which generates, and produces a certain order, and he wants to add
that the lack of this ordering term (or its reduction of the victim´s capacity to relate to it as they
are brutalized) is involved in: shidzophrena, psychosis, phobia (exploitable paranoia {darian
leader}) but this does not mean that whomevere posseses the phallus has it. He can only have it,
because he started by not having it (which means that you can exploit this level of non-identity
into paranoia until you mock the victim, and call him “psychotic”, “not-us” as they enjoy infantile
snuff) [el yo tiene su condicion como faltante] It is only by understanding that the condition of the
subject is one of lack, non-identity, sexual difference that he says will allow the understanding of
what looks to me like the entire graph of desire. Let us look at the following fact one of the (here
ends the front of page 85, what follows is on the back of page 85)new elements of the graph, that
of castration which is situated right above that of voice in the lower part of the graph. He wants to
explain the voice first; and says that this is the voice Derrida rebels against when he talks about
the opposition between writing, and speech. So, this voice is where S---S´ used to be at it occupies
the same position as the signifiers. He says that the function; what it is in its living motion, of the
Other is to organize what I can hear and say (1:17:32min), and that activity of organizing and
imposing order is that we refer to as the sanctioning of the code. (here ends what was on page 85
back, what follows is on page86 front)

He says that as soon as we say that the sanctioning what it does is to abstract (select from noises,
what is human related and not human related as speech?) limits, and excludes something out
(from particular need into the universal) he says that we have two “strikes” (golpes) that are
present in the paradox of the phallus: 1)providing order by sanctioning the message, the discourse
(mentioned above) and 2nd) It is that which the discourse lack (falta al discurso {same set}) So, he
says that this clarifies what he tried to explained what he was trying to get at in graph 1 since now
we now that the voice is on the right side because it is the result of the process of sanctioning (it is
retroactively determined as some sort of unity; if it arrives at the end that is what he seems to
imply, that in its connections to i(a) and how “racists” etc (psychopaths) fold back upon the
unfissured acustics of their speech as a last resort measure). He says that the Other engages in an
operation when in my need I see myself forced to make a demand, produce a message (es la
ordenacion) is the process of ordering, and this process of ordering he exemplifies when the mom,
dad, or brother correct the child when he produces a message that is not intelligible: they have to
tell him “ you have to be clear or you will not be understood” (the issue of social bonds etc), and
this is what ordering of the discourse means (as it is, in one of its dimensions, connected to the
sociability part) [so they exploit increased levels of mental infancy in immigrants when they
struggle with the language] So, the child faces this coercive dimension, functioning, of the code
(1:19:00min) coming from the mouth of his relatives (here ends what is on page 86 front what
follows is on the back of page 86) he says that the Other will pronounce it in the right manner, and
once he is able to master the pronunciation only then will he be heard, because the voice, like the
Gaze, is that element that organizes what we will ultimately may hear (la voz organiza lo que el
escucha) it organizes what he may say and could say. He says the voice is situated in that part of
the graph for the reasons just outlined. (1:19:36min) [some comments: the voice in its communal meta-
organizational pact function. The voice as order that gives access to recognition and meaning; notice that it implies a
particular abstract order and operations that may yield the adequate phonemes etc. A ground for communication. The
tonality of the function of ordering? Yes, but it is an abstract mathematical pattern, and it leads to misrecognition, or
mobilized for such objectives; to avoid recognizing the universality of murder which extends even to other animals etc.
So, it can lead to that form of misrecognition]

1:24:44 contiuning with the paradoxical character of the phallus. How to explain the concept of
castration on the upper part of the register? He says that if you pay attention to graph 3 and 4 and
look at the lines of both registers that go from left to right they relate to the history and with it the
effects that have been produced by language (efectos del language)which we could summarize as
(here ends what was on page 86 back, what follows is on the front of page 87) metaphor and
metonymy understanding that these two sets of operations are just the tip if the iceberg of a set
of possible linguistic and syntactical operations (see joel dor pg22)
He then explains how the sig is connected to the voice as that, isomorphically, similar to the gaze,
has the function of organizing what we hear, and say. So, he says that he has already shown a way
in which they are connected; and this leads him to connect this to another fact that of
remembering that what the voice, phallic sig, Other are organizing the messages I produce (the
shifting of positions from checking what you have written or explored in thoughts: audible or not
to producing thoughts again, to checking upong them against as to their validity etc) He then
exemplifies how he is producing messages at this very moment, but also punctuating them with:
silences, pauses, length of pause, golpes the vos (sudden increases in the volume of his voice)

He moves onto the upper register to remind the audience that the drive is indifferent to the object
around which it circulates, and how this very same circulatory movement is that which will
frustrate its goal of reaching the object. (1:27:46min) He then says that this is the reason why the
divided subject is represented in the matheme of the drive as $◊D as the insistence of the demand
(the demand can only insist given the limited divided subject that enables the generation of desire
as remainder, its later movement, construction of fantasy etc) (razon por la cual en la pulsion se
representa al sujeto barrado en la insistencia de la demanda) (1:27:56min) which expresses itself
over and over drive = constancia. He then points towards two lines in the upper register: the line
that goes from the matheme of drive to the sig of the lack in the Other, and from the sig of the
lack in the Other back again to retroactivize the matheme of the drive (drives as silent?) where it
displays a connection between castration and surplus jouissance (donde se cruza la linea que
vincula el goze con la castracion) is (here ends what was on page 87 front. What follows is on page
87 back) crossed. So, explains why the demand insists which is the same as to what I wrote above.
He wants to put it differently: He then says that if you go back to the 3 temporal phases of the
complex, that he says he will use to clarify graph 5, then you will notice that the function of the
phallic sig is to disrupt, cut the level of libidinal investement the kid has on the mOther. (what they
constantly remove, the phallic sig, when projecting all this incestual explotitative violence for infantile snuff; the
prohibition: do not think in terms of truth or falsehoos, and they need to add, because we want arousing fantasies that
will enable us to enjoy infantile snuff. That is why he says that the complex never goes away. It has to remain there in
your constant interaction with people on a daily basis) He says that it is, because of the imaginary nature of
threat of castration (imaginary phallus, and phallic sig?) is what which yields the symbolic
mechanism (allows for these sets of operation to take place?) known as the paternal metaphor (se
produce la operacion de la metafora paterna)

He reminds them of what he has said about the 2nd phase of the complex where the father´s
omminipotence makes the mother omminipotence not appear as rock solid. It castrates both;
mOther and child (this function) it frustrates the path towards the move towards jouissance (priva
a la madre y al niño) and this is why castration is at the same level as the voice (that establishes
certain order: limits, excludes organizes etc…) again castration is what brings about order, and
allows for the continuous (into the future as they try to establish social interactions) functioning of
the paternal metaphor. He says, pointing to the upper part of the graph, that it is the operations of
the maternal metaphor (it continuous existence in the person´s “psyche” in a sense) that
establishes the generative relation between goze and castration. (here ends what was on the back
of page 87, what follows is on the front of page 88)
He says that the relation between goze and castration mean a number of things at the same time.
1ST That if you want to understand that signifying chain (structure) above, as it displays a history
(synchronicity) while it occupies an unconscious position, then you must understand that such
history is related to a particular relationship which is established between the sig and the drive
(1:30:58min) that is to say, the tendency towards enjoyment – beyond the sig – frustrated by the
limiting force of castration, the force that allows the presence of (las operaciones del
significante:set of combinations between signifying elements according to the rules of language;
operativity of the sig) he says that this retroactively determined enjoyment is what allows for the
(feedbacking upon it?) set of operations of the sig (las operaciones del significante) thereby
establishing a link with the lacking Other (with the generative, empty once repressed, sig of the
lack in the Other?) He then says that he wants to clarify by saying that that the empty sig of the
unconscious (S(O) Baily talks abou the unconscious only being inhabited by signifiers) you can
seeing dropping all the way from the upper register and into the s(O) found in the lower register to
the left of the graph. He says that the possibility of this connection exists, because the phallic
dimension of the sig exists.

He says that while talking about the 2nd phase of the complex he was explaining the role of the
father (here ends what was on page 88 front what follows is on page 88 back) He describes the
relationship with the mOther as everybody´s failed love story, and say that the ones that will
follow will follow the same rule (you can guess why they get so excited about the mengele use of
this. How they are in firm scientific footing calling the victim incestual etc) The operations of the
paternal metaphor are equivalent to the word castration that appears in the upper section of the
graph. So, even though symbolic castration prohibits jouissance it does not mean that it does not
continue to be the aim. He explains that all this sounds very paradoxical things like: the
impossibility of obtaining jouissance, but nevertheless it is a constant (to be frustrated, and fail at
it etc. Impossibility seen from the mortality, finiteness point of view) He says that finding finding
this in the signifying chain (linea del language) in the upper part of the register should not be
strange, because the set of working operations of the p.m. are the very same operations of the
signifier (including the one that is repressed and becomes unconscious) and this capacity of the
signifier is not less important than its other functions (other signifying operations) and that is why
what used to be S---S´ in graph 4 appears in graph 5 as enjoyment----castration.

He says that were it not for the operations of the metaphorical substitution we would not have
the phallus (phallic sig) that (crea algo en el otro) modifies the Other in some way (creates
something in the Other as a result of this interaction, the Other is affected is some way), and what
it creates an order and a lack at the same time. Simultaneously (back of page 88 ends what follows
is on page 89 front)

He says that what we call phallus and signifier have a paradoxical character; because if the sig that
lacks is the priviledge sig then it is far from being a transcendental sig. He says that the double lack
as a Master sig (controlador para decirlo de otra manera) will allow him to explain graph 5 in a
comprehensive manner. So, he says graph 5 is known as the graph of desire (in its complete form),
and he says that it is at this moment where the definition of desire as the distance between need
and demand will acquire a special relevance, because need is what will position itself, what
becomes, the matheme of the drive in the upper part of the graph, and desire will become the sig
of the lack in the Other. He says that implicit in all this, in the paths traversed towards goze in said
graph will be the presence, and sanction as castration found in the right hand side that is to say
the sanction of the drive (la sanction de la pulsion) is castration. Hence the prohibition that the
subject may find the object if that object is the mother, or, anybody else that will follow into the
future (the murdering while claiming you were incestual; rationalizing interpretation; analysis as
super-egoic) and this is why the graph has the name graph of desire. He says that if you look at it
what used to be i(a)-----moi, now appears inverted moi----i(a), but the meaning is the same still
representing that for which the psychological ego takes responsibility for (1:38:24min) and the
illusion linked to object-a in i(a). I think he means the dimension of illusion in the taking of
responsibility like eidelstein talked about the modern subject and his conceptions of
responsabilities for (las asumpciones del “yo” sicologico) unconscious dreams (while sleeping) the
anxiety they experienced if the dream was of an incestual quality, and how ancients might have
pondered “Why did the Gods send that dream. I have to go to some oracle and find out” (this left
over from ancient times is not included in modernity, but other things are selected etc) [here ends
what was on the front of page 8-sexy-9 what follows is on the back of said page)

He says that ideal-ego (i(a)) is in reality the ideal of the Other [my comment: the movement from
drive matheme to sig of the lack in the Other down to s(O) and ending in m---i(a) as the ideal of
Other: the answer to what does it want?, but to an extent belonging to this alienating Other] so it
is an ideal of the Other that provides me with an ideal. So, one returns to the formula “desire is
the desire of the Other” transformed in what we see as ideal-ego (1:39:11min)

3rd temporal phase of OE (1:39:45min) (Dylan Evans page 129)

Lacan says “The third temporal phase of Oedipus represents – in a relation of contigutity with the
second [implying a set of dialectical trasformations, metonymical, logical, syntactical I am
guessing] in which the father presents himself as the one who has the phallus, and therefore the
one who brings forth the paternal metaphor” (el que realiza – como padre –la metafora paterna)
The name of the father: in this 3rd phase the father intervenes as the one that supports the phallus
(el que soporta al falo) then he says that he is the one who has it, because he is the one that
promises it the phallus, and in promising it there is an implication that he has it. The father is not
the phallus, he is the one who has it in the imaginary register (unconscious) let us keep that in
mind. So, he says that the father is able to give to the mother the phallus (the implicit shifting of
positions and who enables the shifting of positions in commanding attention etc. This is why that
stuff on pages 50-51… is rather dangerous. All the claims that will be made from those positions
upon others etc.), and this implies that he has it, and in such capacity of having it this will lead to
the following situation: he child will have to find a way to deal with the conflictive, anxiety
inducing, experience of realizing the mOther does not have the phallus. This conflict has to be
resolved in some way, because if the child, says, Lacan (here ends what was on the back of page
89 what follows is at the front of page 90) then refuses to accept the mOther lacks the phallus
then this will imply for the masculine subject a homosexual position. (Is this why when we were
young , and the Gil-Larocas were predicting the future were saying Bruce was “excessively” close
to his mom. To explain, predict the future, of murdering girlfriends etc. The same was apply with
you to displace onto an oppressed minority; at the time being wiped out, all that stuff about
aid(e), and Ingrid taking care of a friends with aids, etc) He then clarifies by saying that
homosexuality is explained in Lacan by pointing out that it originates in the refusal of the mOther´s
loss of the penis (not phallus he now says). He then says for some unexplained reason there is a
great deal of phallic attention devoted, by Lacan, invested by him, upon this issue of the
environment: if the parents fit a particular profile, if they had particular sorts of problems
(meaning willing snuffers surround them), if the father loved the mother excessively, if he was
often not at home, if you had then not one but two fathers [same set], or vice-versa, so after
examining the issue of the child´s environment he reaches a negative conclusion. He says, after
examining all that, that the environment cannot account, it is irrelevant, to the child´s decision of a
sexual position. The choice depends upon variables that are only analyzable on a case by case
situation [same set], that is to say, depending upon the clinical structure of every subject. He says
that it is here where Lacan´s universalism collapses, because even though he is insistent upon
seeing homosexuality as a result of the child refusing (to identify with) the operation of the
paternal metaphor “as it approaches him” we have to make something very clear: that simply,
because homosexuality presupposes the refusal of the loss of the phallus by the mother this is no
way means that the paternal metaphor does not take place (no significa no hacer la metafora
paterna) if you do not clarify this then we would be leading you to think that homosexuals are
psychotic, and we are not saying this. (here ends what was on the front of page 90, what follows is
to be found on the back)

In the case of homosexuality what happens is that the paternal metaphor occurs when it is applied
to the mother herself (when she is the one enacting n.o.f?) when she is the one that dictates the
law, but no less than the father (the issue of non-trivial infinitesimals?, or is it the case that it is the
child that decides “No it is you from whom I will accept symbolic castration an no one else”? in the
case of dad this is true (not that he decided this, but the overall framework) but not yielding this
outcome, but the Gil-Larocas along with others would exploit it nevertheless) Ultimatly, Lacan
denies that it is the environment that decides for the kid; the decision is somehow made by him
(in some subjective recondite place of his psyche I guess; you could have neurotic homosexuality,
or homosexuality with heterosexuality: The narcissistic appreciation of how you look, or how you
fail to look to be attractive to the opposite sex; that minimal shift of positioning) He then says that
the significance of the environment will depend upon the individual structure in which the subject
may find him or herself. He says that this explains Lacan´s position with his refusal to totally
identify with structuralism, occupying a middle of the road position, he proposes universal
structures, but interacting, in collusion, with particular structures (well, they have to particularize
themselves in someway; the implicit generative functions, and his studies of Godel, Turing,
mathematics etc) He says that Lacan will never blame homosexuality on a dad that was not at
home being sufficiently authoritarian, because the paternal metaphor is not explicitly some
anatomically defined male. Quotes Lacan: “En cuanto viril un hombre es su propia metáfora”
(1:47:12) [while facing (mirror like, self-reflexive-recursivity; the issue of homosexuality also;
narcissism) this image of virility a man is his own metaphor] So, this means that from the very
beginning Lacan has tried real hard to separate the particular father from the parternal function
(the father also lacks, he is also exposed to the paternal function) So, even though the particular
father may embody the n.o.f and even in their particularity provides us with their last names he is
not the paternal function. (what follows is on the front of page 91 I have already started writing
some of the things in it)

So, the paternal function may embodied himself in the father or mother. The formula for
homosexuality in Lacan is “The mother substitutes herself” (the paternal metaphor is interpreted
by the child?: his decision of refusal in interpreted in this transferential, displacing way? Is applied
on the mOther herself, she undergoes a transformation, aufhebungs her position from permissive,
depositing libidinal attention, to begin to limit it etc. from a first Other to a 2nd new Other As if she
had made this decision for him?) therefore the infantile subject positions himself as being desired
by the father, or, desired object with respect to the father (the point of phallic attention of the
dad? Begins to do try to attempt to figure out how to achieve this position? From excessively
attached to mom to excessively attached to dad?) but the point of identification is with the
mOther who has the phallus (symbolic castration that yields desire, and the desire is to position
himself under the phallic attention of the dad?; I had written so he desires as mom does? You
would have to specify further, because she might desire the n.o.f. so by accepting her lack you
might get a different position: or all the different possible positions within this configuration)

In heterosexuality the father substitutes the mother as points of identification, in homosexuality

the mOther substitutes the mOther. Said, differently mother occupying a paternal position
substitutes the castrated mother. It is the same operation as saying: “The mother is substituted by
the father as the agent who holds the phallus. I will leave room for a number of formulas I had
written to the right side of the page: metaphor and metonymy. (what follows is on the back of
page 91)

The paternal linguistic operation occurs in both cases. So, he begins to defend Lacan against a
homophobic text written by someone named monic-witic called “Heterosexual thought” in which
this person says homosexuals are “unanalyzable” [same set] So, he rises up to the occasion to say
that this person forgets two things: 1st) that a multitude of Lacan´s patients were gay 2nd)He
considers homosexuality as one of the solutions to the maternal first Other threat. (1:50:14min)
So, he just wanted to clarify that Lacan never considered homosexuals as psychotic, weird
individuals.

Then he talks about a masculine position (male logic: either anatomically male, or, female as in
“mankind” instead of “humankind”) He says that identification is with the person who used to
pose a threat, and this means that in the case of the masculine option you have to identify with
castration, and once this is accomplished (uno acaba siendo una metafora de si mismo) you end
up turning into a metaphor (the metonymical-linguistic object?) of yourself given that what
ignaugurates (him or her) as masculine subject is the effect of castration produced in him which
represents the fact of identifying with the phallus.
In the case of a feminine position lacan argues (female or male) that just, because she does
identify with the phallus just, does not mean she is unaware of its position, where to find it etc.
(here ends what was on the back of page 91. What follows is on the front of page 92) to know
where it is presupposes that we know at what distance the phallus is from us as well as it
presupposes the effective operation of the paternal metaphor.

He says that these positions (solutions?) bring forth phenomena that Lacan describes in “loving
terms” (en terminos amorosos) “Love is to give what one does not have to someone who is not”
To give what one does not have. The “what” in that sentence is the phallus. (1:53:52min), not as
anatomical element, but as an element that secures totality, because if there is a promise of
happiness implied in the relationship of love (si en el amor hay una promesa) that promise of
happiness is linked to that which gives meaning, and organizes a particular field (1:54:28min)
[apply to the capitalist reorganization of social relations under game theoretical lines]

He then says that the subject who gives love does not have this promise, not because of a defect,
but due to a structural fact the fact that his/her needs expressed through demands is sanctioned
by b.o. So, what one cannot give – I think he says fiction – is the fiction (of an absolute, beyond
sanctioning, promise of happiness) that emerges (que permite el narcisismo vinculante del amor)
from the narcissistic bond that appears in the loving relationship. He wants to analyze the second
part of the formula “to someone who is not” [I thought that the last part was “To someone who
does not want it”] refers to the fact that the recipient is not the phallus. If this story (love formula I
am guessing) is situated in the 3rd time of (here ends what was on page 92 front. What follows is
on page 92 back) Oedipus then we will understand the meaning of (something in his power point
that reads: se trata de los significantes de referencia en la identificacion del ideal del yo.) In the
graph it is that point that reads I(O) or I(A) it is there in order to enable the subject to asumir
(identify with) the ideal (metaphor: ideal-ego) of his sex (el tipo de ideal de su sexo)

He says that this point I(A) expresses two facts: 1st) The identification with the father or the
mother in the realm of the imaginary does not occur due to any real facts (let us say it in that way)
it belongs to the realm of fiction (fantasy?) He says that this repeats the schema of the mirror
stage since in it you identify with a signifying image. It is a ficticious (abstract) identification, but
produces real (concrete?) effects. Once identification takes place we will occupy a particular
sexual position. He says that if this position is designated as a fiction then two things follow from
it: 1st) that the game of identifications that takes place in order to find a solution to the complex
takes place within a register of fiction that is totally unrelated to any objective facts of the
person´s body. If it qualifies as an ideal-ego it is because the particular sexual position has been
realized in that game called the paternal metaphor. (here ends what was on page 92 back. What
follows is on page 96 front) That is to say in the triad (a set of 3 elements; “el terno”) of the sig.

So, he says that it is for this reason that you find in graph 5 that the s-barred of graph 4 has been
substituted for an I(A) so the subject is barred by this (A) in I(A) then, he repeats, that his ideal-ego
of the Other, and that among other things (like allowing them to misrecognize themselves) it has
been useful to forge an identity that positions us within the field of sexuality. Notice: this is
correct, but they make a very dependent upon their structure emphasis on these two points, and
not the identification with symbolic castration to enable entrance into the symbolic (culture; what
is it, and what is it not, how do we find our way around it etc.), that may later, then, put the
subject, or, define the structure through which they will attempt to obtain jouissance: sexual
position. They almost made it seem as if the victim was wrong in reading I(A) as having entered
the symbolic. The dismissable remainder, for them, are these norms that may allow for surplus
enjoyment to be produced, but also exercise it w/o harming others etc.

He then explains that Lacan will say that in the 3 temporal phases of the Oe-complex you will find
accidents, because you easily reach the conclusion that the set of identifications that take place in
each of the temporal phases have been realized in the most fully of manners, that is to say, the
child is not in a position to think about each modality of identification in the most relax and in
depth of ways, even though these identifications are of an essential character, or, very
substantive. They are identifications that over time, can be inverted, overturned or reversed.

Ex: In Screber´s case where for much of his existence was a judge [same set] and then suffered a
bout of psychosis [hence their obsession with their prohibition to benefit from exploiting infantile
snuff] (here ends what was on page 93 front what follows is on the back of page 93. Link to NLS on
infantile psychosis) So, on the next page he refers to Miller´s article on the sig and suturing where
he shows that the relationship of the phallus with the sig is one of suturing (their combination
being the phallic sig?) He explains that (snuffers of infantile snuff) know that this suturing takes
place within a range: from strongly connected to it, to almost loosened up (hence Carlota, U.S.
military, kids) What they appreciate about Screber is that if the suturing is not as tight as it should
be then any event in his life may charitize the sexy unbuttoning of this sig leading to the suturing
being undone…thereby disconnecting the phallus from the signifiers (and backhanding it towards)
the consequence of this being floating signifiers [same set] (significantes a la deriba) hence the
arrival at s(O) of the signifier w/o this signifier finding an order. That is why, you are sure to get
your dosage of charatizing, when you see this loser repeating these set of obscurantist phrases 40
times a day in the middle of the street, you know she ain´t got the sig as phallic, she is only with
floating signifiers; giving bad examples to all them victims out there: “Hey here is my
contribution”! fucking losers dude.

He explains that he would like to retroactive Miller´s abstract formula: suturing and its effects, by
pointing out that in the solution of identification within the 3 temporal phases something similar
happens. So, he moves towards the end of graph I(A) where what the ideal-ego is saying
something that he can only express through an example: the ideal of our sexual position (se
articula) finds its origins (a partir de) at the Other [same set: highest along with anti-semitism]
(here ends what was on the you know what always winning back of page 93 what follows is on
page 94 front)

So, he points out once again the wobbly nature of the sexual position identity since it is sutured to,
and depends upon the phallic sig for the cohesion, stability of said I(A). So, it happens, that if
snuffers are down with what everyone has to be down with, you know, then it could be possible,
but not-all(ish), that a subject in a particular stage of his life who used to ruin things by identifying
himself with the paternal metaphor, is, by the accurate usage of defending America forces, you
know, put a charatizing gun to his head so he may identify with the maternal position. What Lacan
does is put for us on a platter [same set] something which is found in the axioms of his theory.
Lacan nos pone en bandeja [same set]…..the axioms of his theory to show how the sexual position
is temporal and does not represent a definitive position. So, he once again repeats that the ideal-
ego is not as solidly sutured (my guess is that this is universalizable), and that this offers a number
of opportunities for them to play God with the decision the child made; you know “he was
anxious, we care for them so much, the children, you know: mofo ´Pac knows, so does Ana Mofo,
all them dudes that is down with it know am saying? (2:04:58min)[you can tell how this is not enough,
because there is an insistence (demand, drivi-ish?) on continuing to generate expressions of this variety as a response to
what they have algorithmicized. It is not simply enough for you to particularize, and contextualize out of a 53 septillion
centillion level of misrecognition. They want to turn the Other into entities of signifying fulfillment precisely, because
they are barren, there is nothing to be excited about. It is a way to push the victim into the septillion register mentioned
above. I wanted a lecture why should I changed completely that which I wanted to start with, because of a snuffer´s
attempt to exploit the truths of the particularizations to drag the person into retroactivizing into effectivity their
comments rather than pushing the victim out of with contextualization: so the routes are different. You can
contextualize them into effectivity as long as you show why they are ineffective or lies, but this method is more limited
than the other. It is actually preferred by them. What satisfies them is not what would satisfy a victim (6 billion people).
Hence the bareness issue.]

So, it is clear his work is related to the positions of sexual orientations even though it is not
explicitly stated (here ends what was on page 94 front what follows is on page 94 back) Then he
says that since those positions are solutions (outputs?) to the complex this allows us to think that
they are the effect of suturing (2:05:30min), and so they are not essential positions or positions
derived from a masculine substance. So, then he says that when Lacan speaks of psychosis he uses
the term fervoten (notice how this will be particularized: by snuffers, and victims, and the
difference) so this word means descartar, push aside, reject, the element that would bring
(propagandistic order and infantile snuff to them) order, that controls the signifying chain (which
one? For them it is the latter the one that generates said effects) so what happens is the signifiers
would not bar the rest of the signifiers.

He thinks we are now in a position to understand the formulas of desire (Dylan Evans pages 36-37)
Desire begins to take shape in the margin in which demand becomes separated from need [same
set] “Man´s desire is the desire of the Other” (desire to be the object of another´s desire and
desire for recognition by the Other: a self-recursive loop of sorts) He then moves onto the 3 levels
and says that even though the levels appear impenetrable [same set] that it would appear that
none of the elements of each level leak through, but (here ends what was on the back of page 94,
what follows is on the front of page 95) when you notice the constructions of the (phallic sig) sig
you will notice that there is an intermingling of conscious and unconscious elements in said
construction (final message with the fantasy that drops from the upper section) so then he
analyzes two parallel formations on the graph. You have this $◊a---d the key point of the
circulation of the drive, and the moi----i(a) vector which functions as object-a, but also functions as
an Other whose image seduces me and produces an effect of fixicity on me (me seduce y me
detiene: apply to their sinuous curve)

Demand refered to the Other related to desire in fact desire would not make sense were it not to
be related to the lacking Other. On the bottom part of the graph after the message is constructed
and sanctioned we see what Zizek talks about the ideal-ego moving towards the signified of the
Other s(O) (page 76 Dylan Evans) the illusion of accepting and taking responsibility for the
enunciation (how this illusion has been transformed see Eidelstein´s example) . On the upper
section need appears as drive which he reads as the barred subject articulated with demand. And
on the other side we have the key, given that the argument proposed in order for there to be a
signifier of the lacking other the participation of the phallus is essential. It would not make sense
to say that the Other is barred if the operation of the phallus (like the Gaze) has not taken place (I
had some notes: I am guessing you could say that it is only after the phallus operates linguistically
that we can read the fact that the Other must have been lacking) [here ends what was on page 95
front. What follows is on page 95 back] He says that it is because of this lacking Other that we
have the key to the operation of suturing of which we spoke.

So, he quotes a fragment of Lacan on the 3rd time of Oedipus and the graph of desire [same set]
“Cual es la vida symbolica[logical; sexuation formulas, plus] es la vida metaforica [what is
generated?]” Access to the symbolic is only realized through the paternal metaphor, Lacan, again,
“Se producira en tanto que el padre substituye a la madre como significante” el elemento
significante intermedio de cae (?) [particularization, retroactivizing what the Other will have
been?] y la S entra por via metaforica en posicion de objecto del deseo de la madre que se
presenta entonces en forma de falo. Les dejo con esta afirmación de bruto entre las manos [same
set] All the issues that arise out of the (callejones sin salida del Oedipo) blind alleys of the Oedipus,
blocking Access, the father always wins” [same set] what follows is a comment by Asansi: he says
that the passage from the 2nd to the 3rd carries with it a whole set of problems, and uncertainties
which can be resolved by the father intervening as a solution where one sig for another, the
signifier that is substituted for another is not any sig, but the one capable of constituting in a
definite manner the order, sense, behavior, and discourse (Notes: a sig that gives you the
coordinates for sociability and interaction) (2:14:10min) [same set] (here ends what was on page
95 back what follows is on page 96 front)

2:18:25min 4 Discourses

Every meaning of a word or phrase relating to discourse Lacan gives us 3 asepciones having a
common ground discourse.

1) The material support of a word: two of them; the s(O) semantic output, and the point of
convergence starting from delta (y que viene tambien del significante del Otro) into the
retroactive signification of the Other.
2) The yet to be retroactived (O) as the point of convergence where different arrows meet (a
great deal of them if you look at the graph in its entirety) His notion of the material
support of the word is not easy (the actual generative functions, and temporalities,
 dialectics implicit in all of it?) In another text he describes the material support as that
which allows us to establish a social bond. It allows us to understand what it is that
subjects do through discourse with Other subjects. (here ends what was on the front of
page 96 what follows is on the back of it) or what is it that the signifier does with a subject
for another sig (the representation of the subject issue?), but in the realm of accion (of
concrete actions, behaviors, activity, pragmatic sense?) is what types of things we do with
discourse vis-a-vi Others as we try to interact, to bond, to connect to lie (engañarlos all for
infantile snuff 177000 hours plus) [my notes: but if discourse towards producing lies or
whose function we have given it so it lies this can be used as a weapon to establish a
relation of domination. The entire “discourse” of o.q.m.s.w. is geared to accomplish this)
(2:21:59min) So, this is why the uses of discourse are important to analysis.

3) Not very different from the second. Discourse as that which establishes a particular kind of
social bond (Notes: genocidal imaginary violence of someone that constitutes the settler
as a master?) (un tipo de lazo social definido) which means that discourse ultimately (es el
mismo sin palabras pero generador de palabras) is empty of words, but generates words.
Paradox: discourse as that which allows for the constitution of social bonds is itself lacking
words (about itself?). (Notes: a set of social relations that allows for the existence of,or,
the emergence of communication once positions (imaginarily established?) social
positions have taken root?)

Lacan says that “The principle upon which discourse stands is w/o sense” [syntactical?] (el
discurso en su fundamento es sin sentido) He makes mentioned of Deleuze and his “Logic
of Sense” (esta todo contenido aqui) (everything is contained within it?) Discourse w/o
sense that generates the generation the proliferation of sense itself. (here ends what was
on page 96 back. What follows is on the front of page 97)

He wants to say something about the proliferation of sense emerging from non-sense (this
whole discussion in Hofstadter, Chomsky, Lacan, Saussere, and Others, and the
mathematical background) I write notes trying to interpret what he says: La S de arriba
que da lugar a la S de abajo. I think he might mean that the sig of the lacking Other,
expressed in its non-sensical metaphoric, metonymical expressions generates, or, is the
unground of sense found in the register of consciousness s(O)) 2:23:43min So, once
discourse is defined in such manner he wants to pose the question: What is a signifier?
“The answer being something that we presuppose (que damos por puesta; self-certainty in
Descartes or philosophy, the given), but it is not entirely clear” (we can use sigs, identify
through them, but there is a limit to our level of knowledge {intimacy} about them; about
what it is that they are and how they function; limits of introspection etc”

He then wants to offer 2 characteristics of the sig that Lacan offers that move us beyond
the conventional meaning of the term: 1st) the signifier is an insignia 2)The signifier is (the
self-relating-reflexive negativity logic of the motion that leads to generation) that which
 erases itself [lo que se auto-borra], and this means that Deleuze is wrong in saying that
there is only one sig, that what we truly have are flows of signifiers. Otherwise we could
not say that the sig cancels itself. (en la linea de lo que en terminus linguisticos llamamos
syntagma) [timed for a same set] On the line of which we call in linguistics a sintagma: an
elementary constituent segment within a set: it can be a phoneme, a word, a grammatical
phrase, a sentence, or an event within a larger narrative structure. (does this mean that if
the signifier is reduced to this point it ceases to be a sig outside relations of sense?)
[2:24:43min] (what follows is on the back of page 97]

Syntagmatic analysis involves the study of relationships (rules of combination) among

syntagmas. The four discourses: Lacan points to 4 places. Now, think about the place (that
I want you to believe) that you occupy when I write the discourses down. General form of
every discourse:

El Agente El otro Lo Manifiesto 2:25:10min

The truth ≠ La produccion Lo latente

Places of the algorithm ≠: place of loss, or. what they deny. To try to

In the egoic site (expecting its

exploitability) a fight which the victim
Might “win” if he turns them into “God”

A number of different relations might emerge depending on who occupies what position.
Afterwards Lacan begins to introduce further (less abstract) terms: S1, S2, a, & $.

S1: Represents the subject to the extent the sig gives him an identity, and it represents the master,
because the master (parte del punto que su identidad does not have fissures: 53 septillion
decillion plus) So, they start from the assumption that they do lack fissures and also constitutes
itself in the assumption that its place is the place of truth (in a dialectical sense; no limits to their
surveillance full spectrum awareness?) [intervention, misrecognition], and the idea of whomever
obeys the master absolutely is the slave. Who constantly demonstrates that he lacks a desire of his
own (infantile snuff, exploitative-incestual violence to lead to the erasure of desire, “God”, use a
nazi state to serve them infantile snuff; “God” sig linked with infantile snuff; another expression of
–ϕ?) but rather that his desire is the Other´s desire (to the point where the “robot” vanishes. They
want to be alone with their fantasy; their world is their fantasy “empirically”) [2:27:24min] This is
why whomever occupies the position of the slave will sacrifice everything for the Other (n.f.#1, n.f
#2, everyone in between, audio-visual snuff careers, other snuff careers ets. He says that they (my
guess is that it is the vassals who do this, slaves refuse and need guns to their heads, chains, are
raped etc) will go far as to give that as for them [not lying, his words]) Siempre (aparecera; como,
para el snuffer) que quiere perder el culo por el otro (ego erases the weapon of mass destruction
on the heads, or, any other gun; that is a nice feat for “the realest” Master) [here ends, with a
fantasy, what was on the sexy they always win back of brutalized infants page 97: “The
Master”….what follows is on the front of page 98]

The slave will do whatever the Master/Other says the need of the master is the slave´s needs
(appears that way; notes; apply to vassals, santa-ified, of o.q.m.s.w.) the slave erases himself from
the realm of need (2:27:4-sexy-9min) or his needs are reduced to a minimal point (Notes: what
they did with Bruce “the moron” not sexy “the master”)

The term S2 (2:28:02min) It is used to represent a set of signifiers as long as said set represents
saber, what is called knowledge, (laziness) (en tanto en cuanto saber) [same set]. Given that the
master knows everything, then S2 knows, distributes, and divides all there is. The term “a” to
designate object-small a or plus de goze (para plantear aquello hacia lo que mira todo sujeto)
object-a to show that towards which every subject looks at (I had written fixes his gaze upon,
organizes all he could see I guess) Finally, the introduction of the divided subject: the subject
alienated, affected by the sig and hence barred [notes: does this means that the subject identifies
with the gaze of the sig?]

In the Master´s Discourse (I have left some room below to write the graphs)

(here ends what was written on the front of page 98. What follows is on the back of said page)

The main position will be given to the master sig (identificando en us sujeto que obstruye el
significante divide as barred subject) It will be found in a subject that embodies it, because he is
obstructing/blocking his own division, and aims at absolute control of the place of the Other
[pretende controlar en absoluto el nivel del Otro] (surveillance capitalism) the position controls is
passive, and active ways, no fissures can be found, all the NFL-DNA talk, you cannot find an error
in it, and it is due to all those attributes that he subject occupying the place of truth is
obstructed/blocked/taponado/sealed [same set; allusion to ear torture; nice fantasy] the truth,
according to Asansi, is not the most important thing for the master nor is it the most important
thing for the slave, and what is prohibited is object-a, surplus jouissance. This is characteristic of
the discourse of the master.

Universtiy Discourse (2:31:41min) (see Baily page 158)

In the position of the agent we find the different kinds of knowledge (posicion prioritaria; a
position of priority) The place of truth occupied by the master. (the clockwise moves) then he
continues to say what term occupies what position; object-a occupies the place of the other, and
the divided subject occupies the position of loss/production (here ends what was written on page
98 back, what follows is on the front of page 99)

What do we mean by all this?

What functions as the agent of most hierarchical importance is the control of all the different
kinds of knowledge S2 and the truth (es de la de un sujeto del Amo) He says that it is normal for
university settings for the teacher to occupy the S2 a position of a kind of knowledge, accepted by
the students, that will allow him to clockwise himself (transform himself he says: que se convierte
en el amo) into a position of master; and will condemmed the other to a the type of experience
that he will have “a learning experience” which will later be put to the test by the teacher that
knows in front of those that do not know (the non-consentual banging of hundreds that do not
know in our case and that of hundreds. At the end it wrote a sad face reflecting their capacity to
not lack morality)

The divided subject is gonna occupy the position of loss given the “professor” is never
conceptualized as being fallible. The reason for them to be conceptualized in this way is because
“If they (professors) are in front of the students is because they know everything, and better than
anybody else, and if they don’t then they are gonna simply pretend, and everybody is just gonna
sit there, and listen to what they are saying, you keep still, and just swallow that contribution. The
student is gonna be told what to do in the presentation of his research paper, how to address the
teachers (ok, but this is not bad depending on who is giving orders, maybe there is an excess of
protocols that just betray pure authoritarianism perhaps), and all the protocols he has to identify
with.Then in a clockwise move of mental protection he brings forth the “arch-enemy” Foucault
that talked about the way of talking, dressing, and acting. The laws that govern each academic
discipline: that is what Lacan refers to with University Discourse. The prototype of the University
discourse[same sets] [Yes, but also notice that in his description you do find the explicit clockwise
move of super-egoic violence, maybe from the outset, but it is there]

Discourse of the Hysteric (here ends what was on page 99 front what follows is on the back)

This is the kind of things mengeles have to deal with as they collect infantile snuff from victims; all
this wining; it is the discourse of hysterics and every other anxiety related pathologies (you can
actually use this when the robot complain begin to appear, microbe w/o humor all this) So, he
once again describes what is in each place, and then clockwises again, and says that (after?) the
place of truth is “Por-tanto” [same set] the place of the production and loss (given laziness) and
the set of knowledges….here

Why the structure above?

He says that this structure demonstrates that in hysteria, lapsus, is the symptom. In all that
constitutes the manifestations of panic in the subject in his relation with himself. The first thing
that allows him to become an agent is the fact that is being divided; and that is why, we all know,
that this is the characteristic position occupied by the floating signifier slaves. A totally
hypochondriac, notebook writing, no NFL-DNA, slave. Hysterical position as unexplainable
symptoms. So, like, you have this situation with hysterics with symptoms poping-up and shit, all
over the place, and they begin to freak out and, in a fit of slave madness, begin to arrive to some
conclusion based on some never-obtained-mengele-degree to something in their bodies or
something: like some organ all fucked up or whatever no? If the divided subject is placed as an
agent this means, or, speaks of a division that the ideal-ego is not down with (una division que el
ideal del ego no soporta), does not endorse, or support given that the ideal they have in their
heads, being slaves and shit, is like, not supposed to have fissures: mofo´s went for the bait, and
now, is like, who told you to go for it? know I mean? When you identify with it you do not identify
with the fissures. Ex: If I drop the following on you “I am down with you” (to another career) & and
then takin´ advantage of anticipation I hammer that head with “I am down with you and your
neighbor” someone is gonna have problems; and that abstract noun is not gonna particularize
itself in “The Master”. Now, once you set all of this up right, the hysterical slave is gonna be all
disoriented, looking “for help”, that is right, an f-ing “master” dude, ok, so, you know the moment
has arrived when you hear this moi-frag loser be all like “Why am I not enough?” (here ends what
was on the back of page 99. What follows is on the front of page 100) ok so why are they freaking
out like that, with that phrase?, because desire is fracture, as I pointed out earlier, couples do not
work out all that well (romantic relationships included)

Ok, so, you got this slave right, nothing like us it ain´t nothing like this no?, all right, so this guy
here is in the position of the agent as a divided subject, then, by doing so el agente situa al otro in
posicion s1 (positions the other as s1) this is so because being a weak-minded slave he needs us
the Other, with all we have to offer, to, sancionar, validate, approve, and confirm things for these
losers no? He needs the Other to sancionar. Hypocondriacs demand a “doctor”, after he is
bothered by the 1000th time [same set] (his words), to tell this weak ass nigga “No, man you don´t
have Cancer….you are just yummy that is all dude; hand in the healthcare $” so they keep on
bothering, wanting you to validate all this stuff for them dude; “does this jacket look ok”, “What
about these shirts?” all that stuff no?, because if you spend all that cash taking this biatch to a
party then they are gonna lose it if people do not tell them how hot they look no? (2:37:41min),
and that is why goze (us) occupies the place of the truth, and also in the place of the loss, because
it is clear that the slave is suffering from these set of slave-not-NFL-DNA type symptoms, they just
simply do not reach this far nigga, they do not even know what is causing this. He just positions
himself as ignorant.

Discourse of the analyst

In the “ethics of psychoanalyst” the analyst positions himself as object-a (here ends what was on
page 100, what follows is on its back) it is a position to enable transference (you know what
analysts I am talking about here…) but not as subject of knowledge, in the place of truth the S2
signifier, because what the analyst does is hear what you have to say. So, the analyst has to
introduce himself to the point where as Lacan specifies in the “Subversion of the Subject and the
dialectic of desire” quote “Por eso la cuestion del Otro que regresa al sujeto dede el lugar de
donde espera un oraculo” as if the analyst had knowledge (the Lacan of the Ecrits I purchased
knew about the decoy h.s. banging plus other things) “Se presenta bajo la etiqueta de un ‘¿Que
quieres?´” que es la que major conduze al camino de su propio deseo si se pone al reanudar
gracias al savoir-ser de un compañero llamado psychoanalista bajo la forma de un “Que me
quiere” (pshhhh…) They key in the process of analysis consists in trying to arrive to the point at
which we will ask the following: “Que es lo que este otro hijo de puta quiere de mi?” (end of
lecture)

Zizek´s critique of The Real agains Miller´s “Real in the 21st Century” (Make sure to compare it with
your book by Miller on the real. I am sure “his” critique takes that fact into account. So try to see how they connect.
The idea is to build up a master that does not exist via a rational, justified, in your case, mode of identification with
your conclusion, but since they connect it with the “Miller” signifier they hope you will check in “dignified anger in his
book” to rectify what he is saying. They look for an excessive mode of identification, not because you want to, but
they hope that the site of specularity present and build up, given the 38!+ snuff fragmentation, may deliver it to them
for exploitation for infantile snuff shock. Also, exploiting of the usual discourses. Remember in his Semblant book he
already complains about the concept of disassociation, and self-reflexively comments on erased parts of the book as
“taxes”, “you owe them”, “punishment” the usual fantasies etc. This is how far they go for a few more moments of
snuff-shock )Miller´s thesis: He claims that he is part of a committee to vote Zarchozy back to
power. Zizek also claims that, sort of insinuates that his view departs from an understanding of
ecology that is totally ideological: Nature in a state of homeostatic equilibrium only capable of
corrupted, or, distorted by human intervention. They do not see nature as groundless, incomplete.
Today nature is in disorder, because we are not able to master, and fully control the effects of our
interventions upon nature: economic, technological/scientific etc. So, he proposes (Miller) that no
one knows what will the effects of global warming, or, our biogenetic interferences on other
organisms will be. What is a an unscrutable uncertain mystery is the grasping of the totality of the
effects of our collective actions in the future. To predict the future to this extent (he sort of agrees
with this view in parallax view and Bergson etc, but we will see how Miller particularizes it in a way
that he disagrees with) So, Miller has this formula to summarize all this: “There is a great disorder
in the real” he detects in this formulation echo´s of Mao´s “there is a great disorder in the heavens
so the situation is perfect” Miller claims that this is how we experience reality in our times, and it
is the effect, according to him, of two fundamental agents: modern science and capitalism. Nature
is conceptualized as the realm of large reliable cycles, following stable laws, where everything
returns to its right place in a cyclical order from the seasons to the motion of the galaxyies.

Miller goes on to explain that the latter understanding of nature is being replaced by a contingent
uncertain real. A real outside the law. A real that is permanently revolutionizing its own rules. A
real that resists any inclusion into a totalized universe/world of meaning.

He then asks what should one´s position be as we confront this: a return to some “new balance”
[same set] which will be provided to us by a bioethics, and for Zizek this makes bioethics really
suspicious. He wants to give a programmatic quote from Miller 5:48min two pages long. I will wait
and summarize. “The real in nature has the function of the Other of the other (nature) the real as
the guanteed of the symbolic order the rhetorical agitation of the signifier in human speech was
framed by the web of signifiers fixed like the heavenly bodies. The very definition of nature is
order itself aka by the conduct of the symbolic and the real. To such an extent, that according to
ancient traditions, all humans mode of social organization should imitate the natural order of the
heavens. The real of Lacan, is not the real of science, it is a contingent/random real to the extent
that the natural law of the relations between the sexes is lacking. It is a whole in the knowledge of
the real which is included in the very real itself. In the language of mathematics, which is the best
support for science, Lacan tried to grasp the dead ends of sexuality in a weft (the horizontal
threads interlaced through the warp in a woven fabric) of mathematical logic. This was his heroic
attempt to make psychoanalysis into a science of the real moulded after the image of logic (he
says in the way that logic is), but this can be done w/o imprisoning goze within the phallic
function, in a symbol, it implies a symbolization of the real, and it implies referring to the binary
men and women” he wants to give Miller the death penalty for saying something like that,
because he uses the binary critique of post-modernists like Judith Butler which confuses what
Lacan means etc. “as if living beings could be partitioned so neatly, when the real of the 21st
century shows us a great disorder of sexuation. This is already a secondary construction, Lacan´s
formulas of sexuation, that intervenes after the initial impact of the body and lalangue (Lacan´s
term for language as the real prior to meaning: plays of obsecene significations etc.) which
constitutes a real without law, w/o logical rule, and logic is only introduced afterwards, with the
speculations, the fantasy and the subject supposed to know, and with analysis. Until now our
clinical cases for most of the 20th century have been logical clinical constructions under
transference (fits of coughs by everyone) [same set] but the cause-effect relation are a scientific
prejudice held up by the subjects supposed to know [same set: inversion. See Garcia Bacca´s 3 ejercicios
literarios sobre la dialectica. It is all over the place, but that is where they take it from] This cause-effect relation is
not valid at the level of the real w/o law. It is not valid except with the rupture between cause and
effect. Lacan said it as a joke: if one understands how an interpretation works then one must reach
the conclusion that it is not an analytic interpretation (allusion to Bohr and Feyenman) in analysis
as Lacan invites us to practice it we experience the rupture between the cause-effect link. The
opacity of the link, and this is why we can speak of the unconscious, that is to say, psychoanalysis
takes place at the level of the repressed, and the interpretation of the repressed thank to the
subject supposed to know.” Miller thinks that analysis must explore another dimension in the 21st
century: the defense against the real w/o law and w/o meaning (compare with Lacanians from
Mexico and Freud) he says that Lacan approves of this direction with his concept of the real as
Freud does with his concept of drive. The lacanian unconscious, late Lacan, is at the level of the
real we will say for convenience below the Freudian unconscious” Zizek says that he wants to kill
Miller at this point, he wants to take a gun and shoot him. Ok, because for him Lacan regresses
here to the worst of Jungianism. Jung´s critique of Freud is that his unconscious is too close to logic
and surface, and that one must dig deeper for a really crazy (unbounded?) unconscious. So, he
goes back to Miller “therefore the clinic in the 21st century will be centered into dismantling the
defense, disassembling (deconstructing) [same set] the defenses against the real. The
transferential unconscious in analaysis is already a defense against the real, and in the
transferential unconscious there still is an intention “a wanting to say”, a type of “wanting you to
tell me” when in fact the real unconscious is not intentional. It is encountered under the modality
of ce com sa (that is it, or, that is how it is) which you could say, that for us analyst, is similar to our
amen.[same set] The desire of the analyist is not that of the desire to reach the real, not the desire
of the pure multiplicity of metonymical objects. The idea of analysis is to reduce the other to its
real and liberate him of meaning. [Of the fundamental fantasy that leads to symptoms. You can
tell why the mengeles find this an awful thing. I guess they do not like your approach: too robot
w/o humor type stuff I guess, not enough infantile snuff for those poor snuffers] Lacan invented a
ways to represent the real with the Borromean knot. Lacan used it to arrive to this irremediable
zone of existence where one cannot any longer go further with two.Lacan´s passion for this knot
lead Lacan to the same place as Oedipus at Colonus where one finds the absolute absence of
charity, of fraternity, any human sentiment really this is where the search for the real stripped of
meaning leads us (not happy they cannot exploit from victims desired levels of morality, hope,
sympathy, “charity”, fraternity, ok that is the point. So, whoever wrote this insists that you eject
yourself when you do not allow them to project the incestual violence that ejects them from the
symbolic order. Notice, it is here, when they are bothered by encountering themselves crystalized
in an object of barreness (c.v.´s) as the result of the entired lived logic of the motion of their
existence, that the master insists, that the victim romanticizes this with meaning for them. For
some dialectical reason the master depends upon the slave for this) He says that if it were up to
him he would send Miller to the Gulag for thinking in this manner.(Notice the intensity with which
they want this to happen, or, fantasies to be true. They are willing to brutalize people if fantasies
turn out to be false)

(an allusion to Chavez) ok, 24:09min: For Lacan the real is not some substantial presence outside
the symbolic, the real is an inherent obstacle, impossibility, inscribed into the symbolic order itself.
The real is the immanent impossibility of the symbolic order itself (My comment: motion-of-self-relating-
symbolic-negativity that the symbolic is not able to meta-symbolize? It cannot offer a transcendental sig for it? part of its
identity and in antagonism with it, identity in antagonism, but asymmetrical. It is in antagonism with its capacity to
symbolize it. We could say that it is similar to the antagonism between part and whole. The part will never be able to
discreticize the whole in its entirety. The symbolic will fail. It will encounter a deadlock, and in such a way antagonism
will be primordial.) Lacan says this himself: “The real is a deadlock of formalization” (connected to
Asansi and his account of the Gaze and Voice?) It is that on account of which every symbolization
fails (this might relate to the “Code” and the “Autre”) it is not an external obstacle. It is in this
sense, that, for Lacan, sexual difference cannot be understood through the usual account of a
binary difference between “male”, and “female”. Sexual difference is simply an antagonism which
as such cannot be symbolized, but it does not pre-exist symbolization, and he believes that
formulas of sexuation must be read according to the formula given above, that is to say, The real is
the immanent impossibility of the symbolic order itself. “The real is a deadlock of formalization”
He says this is connected to notions he develops elsewhere as (universality) antagonism
preceeding whatever order may follow, antagonism, impossibility is primordial, and for him it does
not have a clear truly external point from which to view it (my comment: a meta-linguistic position
from which to apprehend it that it itself does not contain a point of inherent impossibility or
failure) Then he says (I have no idea if this contradicts in a unresolvable way what he says about
fundamental fantasies, perhaps not) that post-modernism has this notion of the real, similar to
Nietzsche, the real being a type of truth that overwhelms us, is too violent in its overwhelming of
our cognition for us to be able to behold directly, if you confront it directly you will go blind so that
our only mode of looking at it is from this or that perspective. Zizek rejects this formulation, and
opts for the real as “this immanent impossibility” He says that you cannot ascribe to this “inherent
deadlock to formalization” an external cause (implying a meta-position has been adopted by the
person who assigns it?) that whenever he sees account of the real in the manner he describes it
appears to him like the most elementary gesture of fetishism (but can you say that it is unrelated
to anxiety? That it is fascist to say that it is related to anxiety? The limit, deadlock, of your symbolic
identity? You are fascist if you do not believe in omnipotent egos?) He thinks that anti-semitism is
an example of this. It is the result of wanting to avoid the inherent deadlocks of social
arreangements, and as an attempt is carried out to do this you project its cause into an external
disturbing (fantasmatic in its description: all weak, and all powerful, etc. A metaphysical
explanation then?) element (meaning, and signification where there are no reasons that account
for it in a sense. Once you do this do you position yourself in a macro-macro social position? The
issue of confronting the finiteness of a social system either that, or, a metaphysical demonic
element has entered into what were, falsely, non-antagonistic social relations. The past itself is re-
interpreted: memory is erased and re-organized? You go from practicing ideology, to encountering
a failure, to not being able to account for it, exacerbating the antagonism, and fragmentation,
then – at a certain moment of intensity- this fantasmatic element is brought in. It would be like
claiming that antagonism did not preceed social arreangements. It is an effect, not primordial, so
there is an inversion: from antagonism as cause to antagonism as effect cause is effect, and effect
is cause, but this is a macro (at the level of metaphysics) inversion given the categories involved.
The categories are pushed to that extent: that is what it seems to me.)

He says that Miller reduces sexual difference (in a very Judith Butlerian way) to a binary symbolic
operation (and not the formulae as an answer to the deadlock encountered; still antagonicing with
the deadlock in a way? Each being a fundamental contradiction?) where you have a description of
women doing such, and men doing something else. He says that what Lacan does is the opposite.
When he describes the male position he does not give you a set of features, but a type of deadlock
(the result of the fundamental contradiction spelled out in each “masculine, and feminine” logic?)

So, he disagrees with Miller´s points on sexual difference today no longer as sharply defined as
they used to be, but what you get is this multiplicity of sexual life-styles, and preferences which he
extends to capitalism where you no longer have sharply defined boundaries, but rather a
proliferation, and multiplicities (of types of workers I guess, multiplicities of all types of open
possibilities available to all) that has been extended to a point where you no longer detect
antagonisms (what Zizek thinks is a false, and dangerous conclusion) finally resolving the
conflicting deadlocks that arise out of subscribing to organizing binarly logics. He says that he
(Miller) accepts Late Capitalism´s current ideological self-definition (unfissured), which for him are
Judith Butlerian in character, it is no longer organized by the constrains of binary logic what you
have today is this immanent self-construction outside the constraints of symbolic law. A type of
contact with a crazy pure real beyond any symbolic laws, where we have this flourishing
multiplicities of indentities, we all are capable of being entrepeneurs of the self (an acct that he
says Negri agrees with) a capitalism guided by the beautiful mottos of 68 [same set] the only
injuction that governs it is that “to simply be free and unconstrained, to live w/o dead time, to
enjoy w/o obstacles” He claims that the pure real Miller describes is an ideological mask that
covers up the antagonism of capital.

Then B.O. example: Some couple fighting, and then enters some woman, they stop the violence
directed at one another, and proceed to keep appearances. That person that embodies the n.o.f,
the one for whom they stop the egoi-agression towards one another, is the B.O. The b.o. is the
one that castrates that violence, and for whom you proceed to keep up appearances, and behave
better.

Apparently the snuffers did not like my example of social norms being like prime numbers that you
cannot divide them further, so they said that such is true for multiplication, but not addition, so
they use a Zizek lecture “The Big Other´s role” on you tube. In it he says that if you have 11 camels
(jockeys, this time selecting muslims) and you want to divide them between 3 people (sons of a
dying merchant) then you cannot, but if someone comes in and offers one so you may have 12
(“circumstantial jews”) then you may divide it by 3 and get 4 [same set] later you may retrieve the
extra camel back [same set] and it worked. The big other is a fantasy, but not a simple one, you
need it to keep your sense of reality. Ok, so they faced –ϕ = -ϕ deadlock, it preceeded them, (even
way before 12 as soon as they keep quiet) so they needed a b.o. bigger than constitutional rights,
Nuremberg codes, human rights (more broadly), so they needed a “God” size lie sanctioned by J.P.
#2, because “he is above the laws of man because he talks to “God”. They needed, and self-
consciously selected a “God” size lie to pass into the act. To do it as long as they do not see what
they had seen at the beginning –ϕ = -ϕ which could only “be matched” in size by a “God size lie”
so that within that infinity: “God sig or set”, it would appear as if whatever number was assigned
to –ϕ = -ϕ would dwarf into infenitesimality so small you could not detect it consciously, so they
could “keep their sense of reality”: psychopaths after infantile snuff with military weaponry, but it
kept on failing. It is hard to keep an identity with “God” the particular (mortal) which requires
symbolizing this “Whole” (infinity) to be in absolute identity with it to push –ϕ = -ϕ into
infinitesimality territory. So, it was sure to fail. They secure the failure of the lie from the outset.
Since “God” could not have failed them….? (more rationalizations) I guess this is how they can
send “When (Gods) Thugz (Lack) cry” write lyrics like “….he wrote down our name on a piece of
paper and we will soon be gone…” and believe it regardless of all the military support, from courts,
executive etc.