The divided subject, in favor of singularity

 Subject is an effect of language and structure (cite) - self-subject difference

 Subject is also related to lack and castration
 Barred subject precisely because there is something that escapes signification
 Miller - subject exception
 Logics example
 HANS SINGULAR SOLUTION
 Starting point here is not subjectivity-
 Psychoanalytic practice aims subject is because it is easier to operate on the
realm of imaginary identification - repetition – that which spaces lapsus, joke
 Research participant - subject it is not the person that we interview rather
emerges fails -
“Is just reasonable to hold that the patient ‘knows’ his traumas as that he does not
‘know’ them, for he knows them in that he has not forgotten them, and he does not
know them in that he is unaware of their significance” (Freud, 1909 p. 196)

THE UNCONSCIOUS AS THAT WHICH REQUIRES TO BE LOOKED FOR (Freud,

1909 p. 176)
“And perhaps the shortest definition of the subject in this theory would be that ‘subject’
is the conceptual name for that point of regularity, of substance, or of structure, in which
the latter breaks down, or displays an inner difficulty, contradiction, negativity,
contingency, interruption, or a lack of its own foundation. Subject is the place where
discontinuity, a gap, a disturbance, a stain becomes inscribed into a given causal chain”
(Zupančič, 2008 p. 23)
“The subject, therefore, is not tied down and fixed, but slips from signifier to signifier.
This means, amongst other things, that language fails to fix desire; in fact, it does
exactly the opposite, and provides for its malleability and transformation of form.
As a result, our knowledge of our desires is imperfect and sometimes contradictory: we
can both want and not want something; we can find satisfaction in not getting
what we desire; we can remain unsatisfied when we get what we want” (Moore &
Moore, 2007 p. 53)

Humans come into the world already made, and yet for each individual the social
must be made anew each time or rather each must be inaugurated into the social”
(p. 53)
We internalize these desires as we internalize language, and yet like language they
never become completely ours, they remain foreign to us and thus our unconscious
is constituted in and through the discourse of the other (p.54)

Desire ensures that the relationship between the subject and the social is always
unstable, a matter of continuous circulation, rather than of a straightforward
determination. (p.58)

the ego is part of the imaginary order, the subject is part of the
symbolic. Thus the subject is not simply equivalent to a conscious
sense of agency, which is a mere illusion produced by the ego, but
to the unconscious; Lacan’s ‘subject’ is the subject of the
unconscious. Lacan argues that this distinction can be traced back
to Freud: ‘[Freud] wrote Das Ich und das Es in order to maintain this
fundamental distinction between the true subject of the unconscious
and the ego as constituted in its nucleus by a series of alienating
identifications’ (E, 128). Although psychoanalytic treatment has
powerful effects on the ego, it is the subject, and not the ego, on
which psychoanalysis primarily operates.

References to language come to dominate Lacan’s concept of the

subject from the mid-1950s on. He distinguishes the subject of the
statement from the subject of the ENUNCIATION to show that
because the subject is essentially a speaking being (parlêtre), he is
inescapably divided, castrated, SPLIT. In the early 1960s Lacan
defines the subject as that which is represented by a signifier for
another signifier; in other words, the subject is an effect of language
(Ec, 835).
Lacan’s thesis about the determination of consciousness by the
symbolic order; ‘the subject is a subject only by virtue of his
subjection to the field of the Other’ (S2, 188, translation modified).
The term also functions in legal discourse to designate the support
of action; the subject is one who can be held responsible for his
ACTS
Is there even room for a substantive concept of the subject in Lacan’s work, and even if so, would this
subject have simply traded an alienation in the imaginary register for an alienation in the symbolic, given
that a signifier refers not to oneself but to other signifiers?

Estar atento al modo en el que el sujeto se representa y percibe dicho contexto (Gallo, 2017 p. 19)

“La forma mas contundente de verificarse el desajuste de lo psiquico y el medio en el cual vivimos es la
repeticion de lo que produce decepcion” (p. 29)

“Reality involves a soldering together of signifier and signified, so that we don’t perpetually ask what
things mean. But in psychosis, at certain moments, these dimensions come apart” (p. 44)

“Our capture in images would thus both help and hinder us. It would allow us to gain mastery of our
bodies, trough the identification with the virtual image provided by our reflection of the image of the
other, yet at the same time it would alienate us and give an aggressive form to our relations with our
counterparts. Identifying with the image promises to unify us, yet it never delivers, as the very thing that
gives us unity takes it away. We grasp unity through something that is not us, that is outside us” (p. 47)

The symbolic, as language plus law (p. 49) – the system of reciprocal renunciations that organizes each
society

“The work of language in organizing reality, and also how language introduced a certain negativity,
building our worlds at the same time as creating a distance from them – reality was broken down into
units and sets of units that could be conceived as distinct (p. 51)”

“A defining feature of the symbolic order is this negativity it introduces, this distance from the supposed
immediacy of experience. Entering the symbolic means accepting the rules and conventions of society,
together with the prohibitions and limits necessary for it to function, which will have effects on the body
itself” (p. 51)

“The most important part of this process is the establishment of lack. We have given up the mother, to
create a zone of emptiness that later objects can eventually occupy” 9p. 65)

Humans come into the world already made, and yet for each individual
the social must be made anew each time or rather each must be
inaugurated into the social” (p. 53)

We internalize these desires as we internalize language, and yet like

language they never become completely ours, they remain foreign to
us and thus our unconscious is constituted in and through the discourse of
the other (p.54)
Psychoanalysis, however, understands choice in a much broader way. The fact that
psychoanalysis looks at a person as being responsible for his or her symptoms does not mean
that a person has rationally chosen his or her suffering. It does mean, however, that the person
is perceived as a subject—that is, as someone who always creates an individual symptom (or
neurosis). This, however, also means that the individual has the chance to overcome his
or her suffering; that is, he or she can change.(p. 178)

Psychoanalysis, in the order of man, has, in fact, all the subversive and scandalous features
that the Copernican de-centering had in the cosmic order: the earth, that place inhabited by
man, is no longer the center of the universe! Well! Psychoanalysis announces that you are
no longer the center of yourself, since there is another subject within you, the
Unconscious. (Lacan, 1957)

The subject who has repressed truth is not the master anymore, he is not at the center of
his discourse; things continue to function alone and discourse continues to articulate
itself, but “outside the subject.” And this place, this “outside the subject,” is exactly
what we call the unconscious.

There has been written that psychoanalysis has as its objective the adaptation of the subject,
not precisely to his external environment, his life or his real needs; this means the ratification of
an analysis would be to become the perfect father, the model husband, the ideal citizen, in sum,
someone who has nothing left to Discuss. All this is completely false. Just as false as the first
prejudice that conceives psychoanalysis as a means to total liberation.

The ill person suffers but he realizes that the path to take in order to go beyond, to
ameliorate his suffering, is of the order of the truth: to know more and to know better.
(Lacan, 1957)

“Lo universal de la clase, de cualquier clase, nunca está

completamente presente en un individuo. Como
individuo real puede ser ejemplo de una clase, pero
siempre es ejemplo con una laguna. Este déficit de toda
clase universal en un individuo es el rasgo que hace que
justamente sea sujeto, en tanto que nunca es ejemplar
perfecto” (p. 255)

“Hay sujeto cada vez que el individuo se aparta de la

especie, del género, de lo general, lo universal. Es
algo que hay que recordar en la clínica cada vez que
utilizamos nuestras categorías y clases -no para
descartarlas, sino para poder manejarlas sabiendo su
carácter pragmático, artificial. Se trata de no aplastar al
sujeto con las clases que utilizamos” (p. 255)

“Para decirlo de otra manera, llamamos sujeto al efecto

que desplaza sin parar el individuo, que aparta el
individuo de la especie, que aparta lo particular de lo
universal, y el caso de la regla. LLamamos sujeto a esa
disyuncion que hace que Keats no sea Ovidio o
Shakespeare” (p. 258)

“La práctica no es la aplicación de la teoría” (p. 259)

El lugar del investigador - “Es la necesidad de ese

intermediario,si uno no admite que hay una dimensión que
sale de la regla, una dimensión diferente, de la decisión,
de la práctica pura, como distinta de lo que se entiende
que se conceptualiza” (p. 260)

“Así, el sujeto humano, el ser hablante, nunca puede

subsumirse a sí mismo como un caso bajo la regla de la
especie humana. El sujeto se constituye siempre como
una excepción a la regla, y esa invención o reinvención de
la falta la hace bajo la forma del síntoma” (p. 261)

“Lacan combina los dos aspectos, el significante que

funciona a partir de una hiancia y la perspectiva de la
libido donde no hay hiancia” (p.263) - Deleuze no supo
diferenciar pulsión de deseo.
“The jubilant assumption of his specular image by the kind of being still trapped in his motor impotence and nursing
dependence - the little man is at the infans stage thus seems to me to manifest in an exemplary situation THE
SYMBOLIC MATRIX in which the I is precipitated in a primordial form prior to being objectified in the dialect of
identification, with the other. to and before language restores in it, in the universal, its function as a subject” (p. 76)

The form situates the agency known as the ego prior to its social determination, in a fictional direction that will forever
remain irreducible for any single individual

PRIMORDIAL DISCORD / ORGANIC INADEQUACY

This development is experiences as a temporal dialect that decisively projects the individual’s formation into history:
the mirror stage is a drama whose internal pressure pushes PRECIPITOUSLY from insufficiency to anticipation
turns out fantasies that proceed from a fragmented image of the body to what i call AN ORTHOPEDIC FORM OF ITS
TOTALITY”

“When one is disappointed, one is always wrong. You should never be disappointed with the answers
you receive. Because if you are, that’s wonderful, it proves it was a real answer, that is to say exactly
what you weren’t expecting” (Lacan- Seminar II p. 237)

“If we receive the answer we were expecting, is it really an answer?” (Lacan, 1988 p. 37)

The ego is an imaginary construction

“It is the subject, not in its totality, but in its opening up. As usual, he doesn’t know what he is saying.
If he knew what he was saying, he wouldn’t be there” (p. 241)

“In other words, language is as much there to found us in the Other as to drastically prevent us from
understanding him” (Lacan, p. 244)