......

LacanandthePreSocratics
..........

...........AlainBadiou

ItisalwaysperiloustoapproachLacanfromaphilosophicalpointofview.Forheisanantiphilosopher,andnooneisentitledtotakethisdesignationlightly.

ConsideringhiminrelationtothePreSocraticsisastillmoreriskyundertaking.ReferencestothesethinkersinLacan'sworkarerare,scattered,andaboveallmediated
by something other than themselves. There is, moreover, the risk of losing one's thought in a latent confrontation between Lacan and Heidegger, which has all the
attractionsofarhetoricalimpasse.

HavingarrivedatthisperspectiveonthescopeofLacan'stexts,oneshouldnotlosesightofthefactthatitisalocalization,thedisinterestedexaminationofasymptom.

The revelatory power of Lacan's references to the PreSocratics is secret I would almost say encoded. Three thinkers are invoked: Empedocles, Heraclitus and
Parmenides.Theinvocationisitselfcaughtupinfourprincipalproblems.Thefirstcanbeformulatedasfollows:towhatoriginaryimpulseofthoughtispsychoanalysis
the heir? The question reaches far beyond the point where, with Descartes, we enter the modern epoch of the subject, or what Lacan calls the subject of science. Of
course,psychoanalysiscouldappearonlywithintheelementofthismodernity.Butasageneralfigureofthewilltothought(vouloirpenser),itenigmaticallybearsa
confrontationwithwhatismostoriginaryinoursite.Hereitisaquestionofknowingwhatisatstakewhenwedeterminetheplaceofpsychoanalysisinthestrictly
Westernhistoryofthought,inwhichpsychoanalysismarksarupture,andwhichisnotatallconstitutedbybut,rather,punctuatedbyphilosophy.

ThesecondproblemconcernstherelationwhichisdecisiveforLacanbetweenpsychoanalysisandPlato.Drivenbyrivalryandcontestation,thisrelationisunstable.
Lacan'sreferencestothePreSocraticsclarifytheprinciplebehindthisinstability.

The third problem is, of course, that of providing an exact delimitation of Lacan's relation to Heidegger. It is to Heidegger that we owe the reactivation of the Pre
Socraticsastheforgottensourcefromwhichourdestinytookflight.Ifitisnotamatterhereof'comparing'LacantoHeideggerwhichwouldbemeaninglessthetheme
oforiginsalonecompelsustosearchforsomemeasureofwhatledonetociteandtranslatetheother.

Finally,thefourthproblemconcernsthepolemicaldimensionofpsychoanalysis.Withrespecttowhatprimordialdivisionofthoughtdoespsychoanalysismakeitsstand?
Can one inscribe psychoanalysis within an insistent conflict that long preceded it? There is no doubt that Lacan here makes use of the canonical opposition between
ParmenidesandHeraclitus.Lacanopts,quiteexplicitly,forthelatter.

Freud'sworkwasanewfoundation,arupture.Butitwasalsotheproductofanorientationwithinthoughtthatrestsondivisionsandterritoriesthatpreexistedit.

Lacan'sreferencestothePreSocraticsthusattestandhereinliestheirdifficultynotsomuchtowhatistrulyrevolutionaryinpsychoanalysisastowhatinscribesit
withindialecticalcontinuitiesofwhatwemightcallcontinentalreach.

ThoseofLacan'spsychoanalyticdiscoveriesthatcanbemadetoenterintoresonancewiththePreSocraticscanbegroupedaroundtwothemes:theprimacyofdiscourse
andthefunctionofloveinthetruthprocess.

OnseveraloccasionsLacanpraisestheinnocentaudacityofthePreSocratics,whoidentifiedthepowersofdiscoursewiththegraspingofbeing[laprisesurl'tre].Thus,
intheseminarontransference,hewrites:'BeyondPlato,inthebackground,wehavethisattempt,grandioseinitsinnocencethishoperesidinginthefirstphilosophers,
calledphysicistsoffindinganultimategraspontherealundertheguaranteeofdiscourse,whichisintheendtheirinstrumentforgaugingexperience."[1]

How are we to characterize this peculiar balancing of the 'grandiose' and the 'innocent'? The grandiose aspect lies in the conviction that the question of the Real is
commensurablewiththatoflanguagetheinnocenceisinnothavingcarriedthisconvictionasfarasitstrueprinciple,whichismathematization.Youwillrecallthat
LacanholdsmathematizationtobethekeytoanythinkablerelationtotheReal.Henevervariedonthispoint.IntheseminarEncore,hesays,withouttheslightestnote
of caution: 'Mathematization alone reaches a real.' [2] Without mathematization, without the grasp of the letter (la prise de la lettre), the Real remains captive to a
mundanerealitydrivenbyaphantasm.

IsthistosaythatthePreSocraticphysicistsremainwithintheboundsofthemythicnarrativewhichdeliversusthephantasmoftheworld?No,fortheyoutlineagenuine
rupturewithtraditionalknowledge,albeitoneinnocentwithregardtothematheme.

Thelatterpointisessential.LacandoesnotconceiveofthePreSocraticsasthefoundersofatradition,orasalosttraditioninthemselves.Atraditioniswhat'tradicts'
(faittradiction)therealityofthephantasmoftheworld.Inplacingtheirtrustinthepuresupremacyofdiscourse,thePreSocraticshadthegrandioseaudacitytobreak
withalltraditionalformsofknowledge.

Thisiswhytheirwritingsprefiguremathematization,althoughthelatterisnotpresentinitsliteralform.Thepremonitionappearsinitsparadoxicalinversion,theuseof
poetic form. Far from opposing, as Heidegger did, the PreSocratic poem to Plato's matheme, Lacan has the powerful idea that poetry was the closest thing to
mathematizationavailabletothePreSocratics.Poeticformistheinnocenceofthegrandiose.ForLacan,itevengoesbeyondtheexplicitcontentofstatements,becauseit
anticipatestheregularityofthematheme.InEncore,hewrites:

Fortunately, Parmenides actually wrote poems. Doesn't he use linguistic devices the linguist's testimony takes precedence here that closely resemble
mathematicalarticulation,alternationaftersuccession,framingafteralternation?ItispreciselybecausehewasapoetthatParmenidessayswhathehastosay
tousintheleaststupidofmanners.Otherwise,theideathatbeingisandthatnonbeingisnot,Idon'tknowwhatthatmeanstoyou,butpersonallyIfindthat
stupid.[3]

Thistextindeedregistersaninnocenceinitstraceofstupidity.ThereissomethingunrealinParmenides'propositiononbeing,inthesenseofastillunthoughtattachment
tophantasmaticreality.Butthepoeticformcontainsagrandioseanticipationofthematheme.Alternation,succession,framing:thefiguresofpoeticrhetoricarebranded,
asifbyanunconsciouslightningflash,withthefeaturesofamathematizationtocomethroughpoetry,Parmenidesatteststothefactthatthegraspofthoughtuponthe
Realcanbeestablishedonlybytheregulatedpoweroftheletter.ItisforthisreasonthatthePreSocraticsshouldbepraised:theywishedtofreethoughtfromanyfigure
that involves the simple transmission of knowledge. They entrusted thought to the aleatory care of the letter, a letter that remains poetic for temporary lack of
mathematics.

ThePreSocratics'secondfoundationalinnovationwastoposethepowerofloveasarelationofbeingwhereinliesthefunctionoftruth.Theseminarontransferenceis,
ofcourse,ourguidingreferencehere.Takethefollowingpassage:"PhaedraostellsusthatLove,thefirstofthegodsimaginedbytheGoddessofParmenides,andwhich
JeanBeaufretinhisbookonParmenidesidentifiesmoreaccurately,Ibelieve,withtruththanwithanyotherfunction,truthinitsradicalstructure..."[4]Infact,Lacan
creditsthePreSocraticswithbindinglovetothequestionofthetruthintwoways.
Firstofall,theywereabletoseethatlove,asLacanhimselfsays,iswhatbringsbeingfacetofacewithitselfthisisexpressedinEmpedocles'descriptionofloveasthe
'powerofcohesionorharmony'.Secondly,andaboveall,thePreSocraticspointedoutthatitisinlovethattheTwoisunleashed,theenigmaofthedifferencebetween
thesexes.Loveistheappearanceofanonrelation,thesexualnonrelation,takentotheextentthatanysupremerelationispuncturedorundone.Thispuncturing,this
undoingoftheOne,iswhatalignslovewiththequestionofthetruth.Thefactthatwearedealingherewithwhatbringsintobeinganonrelationinplaceofarelation
permitsusalsotosaythatknowledgeisthatpartofthetruthwhichisexperiencedinthefigureofhate.Hateis,alongwithloveandignorance,theverypassionofthe
truth,totheextentthatitproceedsasnonrelationimaginedasrelation.

LacanemblematicallyascribestoEmpedoclesthispoweroftruthasthetorsionthatrelateslovetohate.Empedoclessawthatthequestionofourbeing,andofwhatcan
be stated of its truth, presupposes the recognition of a nonrelation, an original discord. If one ceases to misconstrue it according to some scheme of dialectical
antagonisms,thelove/hatetensionisoneofthepossiblenamesofthisdiscord.

Freud,asLacanemphasizes,hadrecognizedinEmpedoclessomethingclosetotheantinomyofdrives.Inthe'RomeReport',Lacanmentions'theexpressreferenceof
(Freud's)newconceptiontotheconflictofthetwoprinciplestowhichthealternationofuniversallifewassubjectedbyEmpedoclesofAgrigentuminthefifthcentury
BC'.[5]Ifweallowthatwhatisatstakehereisaccesstobeingintheshapeofatruth,wecansaythatwhatEmpedoclesidentifiesinthepairingofloveandhate,philia
andneikos,issomethingakintotheexcessofthepassionofaccess.

Lacan,onesuspects,recalibratesthisreferenceinsuchawayastoputincreasingemphasisondiscord,onnonrelationasthekeytotruth.Tothisend,hefleetinglypairs
EmpedoclesandHeraclitus.EmpedoclesisolatesthetwotermsthroughwhichthenecessityofanonrelationisinscribedEmpedoclesnamesthetwopassionsofaccess,
asdeployedbyatruth.Heraclitussustainstheprimacyofdiscordheisthethinkerofnonrelation'schronologicalpriorityoverrelation.Take,forexample,thefollowing
linesonthedeathdrivein"AggressivityinPsychoanalysis":'avitaldehiscencethatisconstitutiveofman,andwhichmakesunthinkabletheideaofanenvironmentthat
ispreformedforhim,a"negative"libidothatenablestheHeracliteannotionofDiscord,whichtheEphesianbelievedtobepriortoharmony,toshineoncemore'.[6]In
Lacan's work, the negative libido is constantly connected to Heraclitus. In short, the connections between love, hate, truth and knowledge were established by
EmpedoclesandthenradicalizedbyHeraclitus,theoriginarythinkerofdiscord,ofnonrelation.

A further proof of the PreSocratics' anticipation of the death drive lies in the consequences that can be drawn from their writings regarding God. Since the God of
Empedoclesknowsnothingofhate,andthereforenothingofthenodalpointofexcessforthepassionofaccess,onewouldthereforeexpectsuchaGod'saccesstotruthto
becorrespondinglyrestricted.ThisispreciselywhatLacan,adducingAristotle'scommentaryinsupport,attributestoEmpedoclesinEncore:

TherewassomeonenamedEmpedoclesasifbychance,Freuduseshimfromtimetotimelikeacorkscrewofwhoseworkweknowbutthreelines,but
Aristotledrawstheconsequencesofthemverywellwhenheenunciatesthat,intheend,GodwasthemostignorantofallbeingsaccordingtoEmpedocles,
becauseheknewnothingofhatred....IfGoddoesnotknowhatred,accordingtoEmpedocles,itisclearthatheknowslessaboutitthanmortals.[7]

For the startling consequences that can be drawn from these considerations of God's ignorance, I refer the reader to Franois Regnault's marvellous book Dieu est
inconscient.[8]

Whatmattershere,however,isthatweobservethat,afternotingthepoeticanticipationofthefreefunctioningofthematheme,LacancreditsthePreSocraticswithan
intuitionthathasfarreachingimplicationsfortheresourcesoftruthinherentinsexualdiscord.

LetusturntotheproblemofstabilizingtherelationshipbetweenpsychoanalysisandPlatonism.

InHeidegger'sstrategy,thePreSocraticsweredeployedlargelyinordertodeconstructPlatoand,asasideeffect,toplottheemergenceofthesystemofmetaphysics.
DoesLacanconductasimilaroperation?Theansweriscomplex.

Lacanneverpursuespurelyphilosophicalobjectives.Hisintention,then,isnottodissectPlato.Rather,LacanmaintainsanambiguousrivalrywithPlato.ForPlatoand
psychoanalysishaveatleasttwoconceptualundertakingsincommon:thinkingloveastransference,andexploringthesinuoustrajectoryoftheOne.Onthesetwopoints,
itmattersagreatdealtoLacantoestablishthatwhathecalledthe'Freudianway'isdifferentfromthePlatonic.

Intheend,however,itremainsthecasethatLacansummonsthePreSocraticstohisaidwhilestrugglingtomarktheboundarybetweenpsychoanalysisandPlatonism.
And it is also clear that the central wager in this attempt at demarcation once more concerns the theme of nonrelation, of discord, of alterity without concept and,
consequently,concernsthedelinkingofknowledgeandtruth.

LacanattributestoPlatoadesireforbeingtobecompletedbyknowledge,andthereforeanidentification(itselfentirelyaproductofmastery)ofknowledgewithtruth.
TheIdea,inPlato'ssense,wouldbeanequivocalpointwhichissimultaneouslyanormofknowledgeandareasond'tre.ForLacan,suchapointcanonlybeimaginary.
Itislikeacorkpluggingthehiatusbetweenknowledgeandtruth.Itbringsafallaciouspeacetotheoriginaldiscord.LacanholdsthatPlato'sstandingdeclinesinthelight
ofEmpedocles'andHeraclitus'propositionsontheprimacyofdiscordoverharmony.

Itisthereforecertainthat,forLacanasforHeidegger,somethinghasbeenforgottenorlostbetweenthePreSocraticsandPlato.Itisnot,however,themeaningofbeing.
Itis,rather,themeaningofnonrelation,ofthefirstseparationorgap.Indeed,whathasbeenlostisthought'srecognitionofthedifferencebetweenthesexesassuch.

OnecouldalsosaythatbetweenthePreSocraticsandPlato,achangetakesplaceinthewaydifferenceisthought.ThisisfundamentalforLacan,sincethesignifieris
constitutedbydifference.EmpedoclesandHeraclituspositthat,inthethingitself,identityissaturatedbydifference.Assoonasathingisexposedtothought,itcanbe
identifiedonlybydifference.Platocouldbesaidtohavelostsightofthislineofargument,sinceheremovedthepossibilityofidentifyingdifferencewithintheidentityof
theIdea.WecouldsaythatthePreSocraticsdifferentiateidentity,whilePlatoidentifiesdifference.ThisisperhapsthesourceofLacan'spreferenceforHeraclitus.

Recalling,inhisveryfirstseminar,thattherelationbetweentheconceptandthethingisfoundedonthepairingofidentityanddifference,Lacanadds:"Heraclitustellsus
ifweintroduceabsolutemobilityintheexistenceofthingssuchthattheflowoftheworldnevercomestopasstwicebythesamesituation,itispreciselybecause
identityindifferenceisalreadysaturatedinthething".[9]HereweseehowLacancontraststheeternalidentificationofdifferencesaccordingtothefixedpointofthe
IdeaasinPlatowiththeabsolutedifferentialprocessconstitutiveofthethingitself.TheLacanianconceptionoftherelationbetweenidentityanddifferenceand
therefore,inthething,betweentheoneandthemultiplefindssupport,contraPlato,intheuniversalmobilismofHeraclitus.ThisiswhatLacanobserveswithregardto
theGodofPresidentSchreberinthetext'OnaQuestionPreliminarytoAnyPossibleTreatmentofPsychosis'.ForSchreber,theCreatoris"UniqueinhisMultiplicity,
MultipleinhisUnity(sucharetheattributes,reminiscentofHeraclitus,withwhichSchreberdefineshim)."[10]

Infact,whatHeraclitusallowsustothinkandwhatPlato,onthecontrary,prohibitsisthedeathdrive.ThePlatonicefforttoidentifydifferencethroughtheIdealeaves
noroomforitHeracliteandiscord,ontheotherhand,anticipatesitseveryeffect.InSeminarVII,whenhediscussesAntigone'ssuicideinhertomb,andourignoranceof
whatishappeninginsideit,Lacandeclares:'NobetterreferencethantheaphorismsofHeraclitus.'Amongtheseaphorisms,themostusefulistheonewhichstatesthe
correlation of the Phallus and death, in the following, striking form: "Hades and Dionysus are one and the same". The authority of difference allows Heraclitus to
perceive, in the identity of the god of the dead with the god of vital ecstasy, the double investment of the Phallus. Or, as Lacan notes of Bacchic processions: "And
(Heraclitus) leads us up to the point where he says that if it weren't a reference to Hades or a ceremony of ecstasy, it would be nothing more than an odious phallic
ceremony."[11]AccordingtoLacan,thePlatonicsubordinationofdifferencetoidentityisincapableofarrivingatsuchapoint.

ThePreSocratics,then,provideamplematerialfromwhichtoreconstruct,fromitsorigins,afarreachingdisorientationofPlato.Inthissense,theyformpartofthe
polemicalgenealogyofpsychoanalysis.

3
TurningtoHeidegger,weshouldofcourserecallthatLacantranslatedhisLogos,whichdealsinparticularwithHeraclitus.Ibelievethatthreeprincipalconnectionscan
bedrawnbetweenLacanandHeidegger.Theyinvolverepression,theOne,andbeingfordeath(l'trepourlamort),AllthreearemediatedbythePreSocratics.

First,LacanbelieveshecangosofarastosaythatthereisatleastasimilaritybetweentheFreudianthemeofrepressionandtheHeideggerianarticulationoftruthand
forgetting.ItissignificantforLacanthat,asHeideggerremarks,thenameoftheriverofforgetting,Lethe,canbeheardinthewordfortruth,aletheia.Thelinkismade
explicit in the first seminar where, in his analysis of repression in the Freudian sense, we come across the following observation: 'In every entry of being into its
habitationinwords,there'samarginofforgetting,alethecomplementarytoeveryaletheia."[12]Sucharepression,then,canwithgoodreasonbecalled'originary'.Its
originary character accords with the correlation in origins Heidegger establishes between truth and veiling, a correlation constantly reinforced through etymological
exegesisofthePreSocratics.

Secondly,LacantakesfromHeidegger'scommentaryonHeraclitusthenotionofanintimateconnectionbetweenthethemeoftheOneandthatofLogos.This,forLacan,
isanessentialthesis.Itwilllaterbeformulatedinstructuralfashion:theaphorism"thereissomethingof(the)One"(ilyadel'Un)isconstitutiveofthesymbolicorder.
ButstartinginSeminarIII,inadiscussionoftheSchrebercase,LacanconfirmsHeidegger'sreadingofHeraclitus.CommentingonthefactthatSchreberonlyeverhas
oneinterlocutor,headds:

ThisEinheit(oneness)isveryamusingtoconsider,ifwethinkofthistexton'Logos'byHeideggerIhavetranslated,whichisgoingtobepublishedinthe
firstissueofournewjournal,LaPsychanalyse,andwhichidentifiesthelogoswithHeraclitus'sEn(One).AndinfactweshallseethatSchreber'sdelusionis
initsownwayamodeofrelationshipbetweenthesubjectandlanguageasawhole.[13]

ItisinthemostintimatepartofclinicalpracticethatwhichdealswithpsychosesthattheclarificatorypowerofHeraclitus'aphorisms,supportedbyHeidegger,now
reappears.

Finally, Lacan believes he can also connect the Freudian concept of the death drive to Heidegger's existential analysis, which defines Dasein as beingfordeath. The
emblematicfigureofEmpedoclesserves,inthe"RomeReport",asthevectorforthisconnection:"Empedocles,bythrowinghimselfintoMountEtna,leavesforever
presentinthememoryofmenthissymbolicactofhisbeingfordeath".[14]

YouwillnotethatinallthreeoccurrencesofHeideggertruthandforgetting,OneandLogos,beingfordeaththePreSocraticsarearequiredreference.Indeed,they
are necessary to the extent that one cannot decide if the PreSocratics are a point of suture, or projection, between Lacan and Heidegger or if, on the contrary, it is
HeideggerwhoallowsLacanaccesstoamorefundamentalconcernwiththePreSocraticgenealogyofpsychoanalysis.I,forone,tendtowardsthesecondhypothesis.

ForLacanintendstoinscribepsychoanalysiswithinadestinyofthoughtthatisdeterminedbyoppositionsanddivisionsoriginallyinformedbythePreSocratics.Onthis
viewtherearetwocrucialoppositions:one,aswehaveseen,contrastingthePreSocraticsenseofdiscordtothedominanceofidentityinthePlatonicschema.Butthere
isalsoanopposition,perhapsstillmoreprofound,withintheranksofthePreSocratics,thatsetsHeraclitusagainstParmenides.TheclearesttextisinSeminarXX:

Thefactthatthoughtmovesinthedirectionofscienceonlybybeingattributedtothinkinginotherwords,thefactthatbeingispresumedtothinkiswhat
foundsthephilosophicaltraditionstartingfromParmenides.ParmenideswaswrongandHeraclituswasright.Thatisclinchedbythefactthat,infragment
93, Heraclitus enunciates outelegeioutekruptei alia semainei, "he neither avows nor hides, he signifies" putting back in its place the discourse of the
winningsideitselfoanaxoutomanteionestetoenDelphoi,"theprince"inotherwords,thewinner"whoprophesiesinDelphi'."[15]

ItisinterestingtonotethatLacanattributesthefoundationofthephilosophicaltraditionnottoPlato,buttoParmenides.

IsaidattheoutsetthatthegrandioseinnocenceofthePreSocraticswastohavebrokenwiththetraditionalformsofknowledge.ButParmenideshimselfisalsothe
founderofatradition.Weneed,then,tolocatetworuptures.Ontheonehand,thePreSocraticsbreakwiththemythicenunciation,withthetraditionofmyththat'tra
dicts'theimaginaryrealityoftheworld.Butontheother,atleastoneofthePreSocraticsfoundsatraditionwithwhichLacaninturnbreaks:thephilosophicaltradition.
ForLacanisanantiphilosopher.Thisantiphilosophy,however,isalreadymanifested,inacertainsense,byHeraclitus.Thephilosophicalideaisthatbeingthinks,for
want of a Real (l'tre pense, an manque le rel). Against this idea, Heraclitus immediately puts forward the diagonal dimension of signification, which is neither
revelationnordissimulation,butanact.Inthesameway,theheartofthepsychoanalyticprocedureliesintheactitself.Heraclitusthusputsinitsplacethepretensionof
themaster,oftheoracleatDelphi,butalsothepretensionofthephilosophertobetheonewholistenstothevoiceofthebeingwhoissupposedtothink.

Finally,Lacanhasadual,evenduplicitousrelationtothePreSocratics,ashedoestotheentirehistoryofphilosophy.Itisembodiedbytherelationshipbetweentwo
proper names: Heraclitus and Parmenides. Parmenides covers the traditional institution of philosophy, while Heraclitus refers to components of the genealogy of
psychoanalysis.LacanwilladoptthesameproceduretostabilizehisrelationshiptoPlato,distributingitbetweentwopropernames:Socrates,thediscourseoftheanalyst,
andPlato,thediscourseofthemaster.

Butthisduplicitoussplitisanoperationcarriedoutwithinthesignifier."Parmenidesiswrong,Heraclitusisright,"saysLacan.Shouldwenottakethistomeanthat,as
thoughtfromthepointofviewofpsychoanalysis,philosophyappearsasaformofreasonthatstagnateswithintheelementofthiswrong?Orasawrongwhich,within
themazeofitsillusion,nonethelessmakessufficientcontactwiththeRealtothenfailtorecognizethereasonbehindit?

ThePreSocratics,then,whoremainforuslittlemorethananassortmentofpropernamestowhomscatteredphrasesareascribed,serveforLacanasaformalreservoir.
ThesenamesEmpedocles,Heraclitus,Parmenideshavejustenoughliteralweight,justenoughauraofsignificance,toallowhimtoseparateout,todrawtogetherand,
finally,toformalizetheinternaldialecticsofantiphilosophy.

Notes:

[1]JacquesLacan,LeSminairedeJacquesLacan,LivreVIIILetransfert,19601961,ed.JacquesAlainMiller,(Paris:Seuil,2001),pp.989.

[2]JacquesLacan,TheSeminarofJacquesLacanBookXX:OnFeminineSexuality,theLimitsofLoveandKnowledge,19721973,trans.BruceFink(NewYork,1999),
p.131.

[3]JacquesLacan,TheSeminarofJacquesLacanBookXX,p.22.

[4]JacquesLacan,LeSminaire,LivreVIII,pp.667.

[5]JacquesLacan,"TheFunctionandFieldofSpeechandLanguageinPsychoanalysis",incrits:ASelection(London,2001),p.112

[6]JacquesLacan,"AggressivityinPsychoanalysis",incrits,p.24.

[7]JacquesLacan,SeminarXX,p.89.

[8]FranoisRegnault,Dieuestinconscient(Paris:Navarin,1986).

[9]JacquesLacan,TheSeminarofJacquesLacan,BookI:Freud'sPapersonTechnique19531954,ed.JacquesAlainMiller,(Cambridge,1988),p.243.

[10]JacquesLacan,"OnaQuestionPreliminarytoAnyPossibleTreatmentofPsychosis",incrits,p.225.
[11]JacquesLacan,TheSeminarofJacquesLacanBookVII:TheEthicsofPsychoanalysis,19591960,(NewYork,1992),p.299.

[12]JacquesLacan,SeminarI,p.192.

[13]JacquesLacan,TheSeminarofJacquesLacanBookIII:ThePsychoses,19551956,(NewYork,1993),p.124translationmodified.

[14]JacquesLacan,"FunctionandField",p.114.

[15]JacquesLacan,SeminarXX,p.114.

AlainBadiou'sBibliography

lacan.com1997/2006
CopyrightNotice.PleaserespectthefactthatthismaterialinLACAN.COMiscopyright.
Itismadeavailableherewithoutchargeforpersonaluseonly.AvailableonlythroughEBSCOPublishng,Inc.
Itmaynotbestored,displayed,published,reproduced,orusedforanyotherpurpose.