
English: 
You are listening, yes
but are you getting hold of a little something
that resembles the Real?
... in the difficult task...
of getting you to understand, this evening, let us say... something
can you hear?
you can't hear.
(Lacan, Us and the Real - 6)
... and like this, can you hear?
Lacan, Us and the Real - sixth session
So last time I tried to
talk about what the project could now be
which would drive us
which would be this Impossible School of Psychoanalysis

Italian: 
State ascoltando. Si, ma vi prendete un piccolo qualche cosa che assomiglia al reale?
Nel compito difficile di far intendere questa sera, diciamo, qualche cosa
Sentite?
Non si sente.
Lacan, noi e il Reale - VI
E cosí si sente?
Lacan, noi e il Reale, sesta seduta.
L’ultima volta ho provato a parlare di ciò che potrebbe essere il progetto
che ci piacerebbe portare avanti e che sarebbe quello della scuola impossibile della Psicoanalisi.

English: 
I'm going to try to delve into what this impossible means
so the impossible, indeed
I would say, the great Lacanian discovery
is to posit the Real as impossible
(The impossible is Real.)
This is where Lacan's teaching radically dissociates itself
from the philosophical teaching that precedes it
because the real - in a way - in philosophy, up until Lacan
is, on the contrary, something necessary.
it belongs to the dimension of necessity

Italian: 
Proverò di scavare un po’ su che cosa vuol dire impossibile.
Si tratta della grande scoperta lacaniana di mettere il Reale come impossibile.
Ed è in questo che l’insegnamento lacaniano
si dissocia radicalmente dall’insegnamento filosofico che gli preesiste.
Perché il Reale, nella filosofia fino a Lacan è qualche cosa che è necessario.
Si tratta di una dimensione dell’ordine della necessità.

English: 
However, Lacan, through play on meanings:
'which doesn't stop not writing itself'
'which doesn't stop writing itself', etc.
inter-defines the necessary, the contingent, the real - sorry... the impossible and the possible
so, the notion of the Real, in fact - because this seminar is called 'Lacan, Us and the Real' -
is really the crucial dimension of Lacan's teaching
and we will see that, precisely
its crucial position is not due to it being something substantial
on the contrary, the Real is something insubstantial
and, because we're coming back to this idea of the Impossible School
it would mean 'Real School of Psychoanalysis'
and we realize that actually, that the institutionalized schools

Italian: 
Invece Lacan attraverso dei giochi di senso con “Che non cessa di non scriversi” e  “che non cessa di scriversi”
definisce il necessario, il contingente, l’impossibile, il possibile.
La nozione di Reale, poiché questo seminario si chiama Lacan noi e il reale,
e veramente la dimensione centrale dell’insegnamento lacaniano
e vedremo giustamente ciò che fa della sua posizione una posizione centrale
non è che si tratta di qualche cosa di sostanziale, al contrario il Reale è non sostanziale...il Reale,
e poiché si ritorna a questa idea della scuola impossibile
e vorrebbe dire scuola reale della psicoanalisi

English: 
ultimately, like all institutions, end up giving in
to a kind of entropy that becomes apparent in every establishment
originally the university serves to deliver universal knowledge
and then, little by little, the university becomes a place for training academics
so the ability of academics to navigate their way through university power structures
will take priority over knowledge itself
and we'll see that the most eminent people at the university are maybe the least academic
because they're the ones who had the  'intelligence' - the 'political intelligence'
to make a place for themselves in the system
instead of being totally devoted...

Italian: 
e qui percepiamo che le scuole che sono delle istituzioni finalmente come tutte le istituzioni
finiscono per cedere a una forma di entropia che si espande da ogni messa in opera.
All’inizio l’università è qui per apportare dei saperi universali,
poi poco a poco, l’università diventerà un luogo per formare degli universitari.
E quindi la competenza degli universitari a farsi un cammino
nei meandri del potere universitario diventa qualche cosa di prioritario rispetto al sapere stesso.
E vedremo che le persone più …dell’università sono forse le meno universitarie di tutti.
Sono quelli che hanno avuto l’intelligenza tra virgolette,
l’intelligenza politica anche tra virgolette di aprirsi un posto nel sistema

English: 
putting all their energy into the research they were supposed to do
so with the schools of psychoanalysis themselves, we see that it's the exact same thing
if you take a look around - as you know, sometimes I'm on social media
much more on Facebook than Twitter, but also Twitter...
and, well, there are these themes
for example, 'The Object-Gaze', which is being studied by the ECF (École de la Cause Freudienne)
and they are talking total nonsense about the object-gaze
they're making it into this sort of 'topic'
and everyone says their piece about the object-gaze
and it's nonsense - it seriously departs from the Lacanian notion of gaze as object
because it's an academic (university) perspective which gets staged
so it's not the gaze as a residue of objet a

Italian: 
piuttosto che essere interamente consacrati con la loro energia alla ricerca che erano supposti fare.
Per le scuole di psicoanalisi stesse ci accorgiamo che si tratta esattamente la stessa cosa.
Poiché di tanto in tanto faccio un giro sui social network come sapete,
molto di più su facebook che tweeter ma anche su tweeter…
E infatti ci sono dei temi.
In questo momento per esempio l’oggetto sguardo e uno dei temi a cui sta lavorando l’ECF.
E dicono delle baggianate sull’oggetto sguardo.
Ne fanno una specie di topico e tutti mettono la loro idea sull’oggetto sguardo e non va bene!
Ci si allontana radicalmente dalla nozione di sguardo come oggetto in Lacan.
Perché è una dimensione universitaria che è messa in scena qui;
non è per nulla l’oggetto sguardo come un residuo dell’oggetto a.

English: 
That which looks at me (concerns me) doesn't see me
we can't talk about it that way
and in the dimension, let's say, of a school which has become an institution
you can see right away that the University Discourse is totally dominant
which means that even the leaders of these schools - because they are leaders
they are bosses, who provide orientations, etc, of 'conquests of territory'
and, well, it resembles the functioning of a corporation
what is secondary - the shadow of the original discourse
has come to dominate the core, the heart of the activity

Italian: 
Non ne se può parlare in questo modo, e giustamente, nell’ambito di una scuola
che è diventata un’istituzione,
vedrete rapidamente che è il Discorso Universitario ad essere ultra dominante.
E ciò fa si che anche i leader di queste scuole,
poiché sono dei leader dei capi che danno gli orientamenti di conquista del territorio,
assomigliano al modo in cui funzionano le imprese.
Chi è secondo, l’ombra del discorso originale è diventata dominante rispetto al cuore stesso dell’attività

English: 
the very core of the activity becomes secondary
it's not psychoanalysis anymore
University / academic psychoanalysis is like decaf coffee
it's psychoanalysis without the Real of psychoanalysis
they are texts, statements, which lack the enunciating agency
which Lacan calls precisely the 'grain of sand' of enunciation
it's that which, as Real, comes up against symbolic causality
enunciation: the grain of sand
the Real - as Lacan says - only things that stumble or misfire have a cause
because when we're in causality, we're in the Symbolic, while the Real

Italian: 
che è diventata secondaria.
Non è più della psicoanalisi.
La psicoanalisi universitaria è come un caffé decaffeinato.
Vale a dire che è la psicoanalisi senza il Reale della psicoanalisi.
Ci sono dei testi degli enunciati nei quali manca l’istanza dell’enunciazione
giustamente chiamata da Lacan, il granello di sabbia dell’enunciazione.
Perché l’istanza dell’enunciazione è ciò che arriva in quanto reale per contrariare la causalità simbolica.
Il Reale, come dice Lacan, non c’è causa  che quando qualche cosa non va.
Perché quando siamo nella causalità siamo nel simbolico.

English: 
is precisely not - the minimal definition of the Real
is 'what cannot be symbolized'.
Only things that stumble have a cause. - Lacan
So when I talk to you about this Impossible School of Psychoanalysis
it means 'Real School of Psychoanalysis'
that's a first... equivalency of the term 'impossible'
and then, of course, that's where there's a kind of semantic acrobatics
I'm going to reference Slavoj Žižek again...

Italian: 
Invece la definizione minimale di Reale è che proprio ciò che non può essere simbolizzato.
Quando vi parlo di questa scuola impossibile della psicoanalisi vuol dire scuola reale della psicoanalisi.
È una prima equivalenza del termine impossibile.
In seguito avviene una sorta di acrobazia semantica.
Una volta non è abitudine e mi riferisco a Zizek.

Italian: 
Allora ho visto che c’era anche Alenka Zupancic, non so come si pronuncia, è slovacco,
che apparentemente anche lei è una delle rare persone ad aver capito il Reale di Lacan.
Slavoj Zizek, che ne è all’origine, colui che mi ha permesso di rivalutare tutto ciò che credevo aver capito di Lacan
attraverso le proprie interpretazioni che ne faceva,
qualche anno fa, forse dieci o quindici anni fa, tra il 2000 e il 2005,
ha scritto un libro assolutamente impressionante che si chiama organo senza corpo, Deleuze e conseguenze.

English: 
because Slavoj Žižek is -
though I saw that there's also Alenka Zupančič
who is apparently another rare example of someone who has understood the Lacanian Real
so, Slavoj Žižek, who is at the origin for me
the one who allowed me to re-evaluate everything I thought I had understood of Lacan
by way of his own interpretations
a few years ago, maybe 10 or 15, between 2000 and 2005
he came out with an extraordinary book called Organs Without Bodies: Deleuze and Consequences
and, in this book

Italian: 
In questo libro parla di qualche cosa di molto pertinente
che ci serve oggi sia per circoscrivere questo concetto di Reale sia per avvicinarsi all’idea di una scuola,
quella che potrebbe essere questa scuola impossibile della Psicoanalisi,
questa scuola che non elimina il Reale.
Slavoj Zizek fa un parallelo estremamente pertinente tra il Reale e il Virtuale fino al punto in cui
arriva a un’identità speculativa un po’ alla Hegel, è un grande specialista di Hegel,
per lui il Reale è uguale al Virtuale.

English: 
he talks about something very relevant
and which will help us today in grasping this concept of the Real
as well as approaching the idea of the School - what could this School be?
This Impossible School of Psychoanalysis - which doesn't evacuate the Real
Slavoj Žižek creates an extremely relevant parallel
between the Real and the virtual
whereby he attains a speculative identity -- Hegel-style
he's a serious Hegel specialist
for him, the Real = the virtual.

English: 
The Real is virtual / its existence is virtual / its effects are Real
so, the first aspect of that to be brought out, of course
is to differentiate, immediately and categorically:
virtual reality, which is an extremely poor and banal idea
because it involves digitalisation
it involves reproducing via a digital medium
reality such as we believe that we perceive it
so that's virtual reality, and the 'digital world'.
so, we have to distinguish virtual reality from the reality OF the virtual
that is, this little conjunction 'of' which is placed between reality and the virtual
which posits 'the virtual' as a noun (a masculine or neutral noun in French)

Italian: 
La prima sfumatura è differenziare subito a priori
La realtà virtuale, che è un’idea estremamente povera e banale poiché si tratta di digitalizzazione.
E quindi si tratta di riprodurre su un supporto numerico la realtà come  noi crediamo di percepirla.
Si tratta della realtà virtuale ed è il mondo digitale tra virgolette.
Si tratta di differenziare la realtà virtuale
dalla realtà del virtuale
con questa piccola congiunzione “del” messa tra realtà e virtuale”

English: 
so it's the virtual as neutral
in this sense we'll see how we can assimilate it to the Real
and, of course, it will help us in our project, which is
that it's also a virtual School of Psychoanalysis in the sense that
in the sense in which we just defined it - the Real is virtual, and that's why there's the term 'impossible'
then we'll come back to this notion of impossible -- I hope you'll have questions
so, what does it mean to say that the Real is the virtual?
first off,  'the reality of the virtual' -- I'm going to try to define this in the same way Žižek does
it means the very efficiency of the virtual
the way in which the virtual

Italian: 
che diventa maschile o neutro, è il virtuale in quanto neutro.
Vediamo in cosa possiamo assimilarlo al Reale.
Sicuramente servirà il nostro progetto visto che è una scuola “virtuale" della psicoanalisi
nel senso in cui definiamo il virtuale è il Reale.
Quindi è per questo che c’è il termine impossibile.
Dopo ci ritorneremo e spero che avrete delle domande su questa nozione di impossibile.
Dunque, che cosa vuol dire, il Reale è il Virtuale?
Prima di tutto...piuttosto la realtà del virtuale, proverò a definirlo cosi come lo fa Zizek stesso,
vale a dire l’efficienza stessa del virtuale;

English: 
contrary to what we might at first think -- something with little effect or impact
is in fact what has the most impact
so, Žižek proposes a scrutiny of the Lacanian triad
-- Imaginary, Symbolic and Real -- in terms of the notion of the virtual
What would the Imaginary virtual then be?
here, he gives the example of the fact that when we address someone
or when we listen to someone, like you are listening to me right now

Italian: 
il modo in cui il virtuale contrariamente a come lo si può immaginare, che sia qualche cosa che non ha degli effetti o un impatto,
ma è ciò che ha più d' impatto.
Zizek propone di vagliare nella triade lacaniana Immaginario Simbolico e Reale, questa nozione di virtuale.
Quindi che cosa sarebbe questo Virtuale immaginario?
Fa l’esempio di quando noi ci indirizziamo a qualcuno o quando ascoltiamo qualcuno,
come voi che mi state ascoltando in questo momento,

Italian: 
di come quindi ne cogliate di me che una parte.
Vale a dire che voi sapete che, come tutti, io sudo, che vado alle toilette, per non citare tutte le cose che potrebbero disturbare…
Ma sceglierete giusto una parte della mia immagine con la quale interagirete.
In qualche modo siete nella virtualità dell’immagine che rappresento, si tratta del virtuale immaginario.
E non è perché si tratta di virtuale immaginario che non abbia degli effetti reali,

English: 
you are only getting part of me
that is, you know that, like everyone else
I sweat, I go to the toilet...
... not to cite a bunch of disturbing things
you will choose just a part of my image to engage with
so there, in a sense, you're dealing in the virtuality of the image that I represent
it's the Imaginary virtual
and just because it's the Imaginary virtual doesn't mean that it won't have real effects, because
what I say or what you understand of what I am saying

Italian: 
poiché ciò che dirò o ciò che capirete di ciò che dico in funzione del modo in cui  intenderete i miei propositi e metabolizzarli,
avrà degli effetti su di voi.
C’è una efficienza reale del virtuale immaginario.
Questo è l’aspetto del virtuale immaginario.
In seguito c’è il virtuale simbolico.
Come potremmo approcciarlo questo virtuale simbolico....Qui sarà ancora più facile, direi.
Ritorniamo al mito originale freudiano del padre della orda primordiale che diventa padre che alla propria morte.
Vale a dire che la legge può aver luogo in quel momento.
Come possiamo interpretare questo nella nostra vita di tutti i giorni?
È molto semplice.
Partiamo dall’autorità paterna.

English: 
according to the way you understand and digest my ideas will have effects on you
so there is a Real efficacy in the Imaginary virtual
that's the Imaginary aspect of the virtual
next, there's the Symbolic virtual
how can we approach the Symbolic virtual? Here, I would say, it's even easier
we'll return to the original Freudian myth of the Father of the Primal Horde
who only becomes the Father through his own death
that is, the Law can instate itself at that moment
how can we interpret this in the terms of our daily life?
it's very simple -- here we're talking about paternal authority

English: 
if you see a child in relation to its father, the paternal authority being exerted
this authority can only be effective if it is virtualized
that's the Symbolic virtual -- if the father is, for example, in himself
someone excessive or violent
who yells at and hits his child, etc.
in a sense he himself diminishes the notion of authority
because he seems to be this stupid scarecrow governed by impulses, etc.
however, if he is not (physically) there and his authority is only a gaze (precisely, we were just talking about gaze)
the father's gaze insofar as it is a part of this authority makes the child obey
because Symbolic authority -- the Law --

Italian: 
Se vedete un bambino in relazione a suo padre e all’autorità paterna che si sviluppa,
questa autorità non può essere veramente efficace che se è resa virtuale.
Questo è il virtuale  del simbolico.
Se il padre stesso, per esempio è qualcuno di eccessivo, di violento che urla a suo figlio o lo picchia, ecc.,
in qualche modo è lui stesso a indebolire la nozione di autorità
perché ha l’aria di un manichino stupido in preda alle sue proprie pulsioni.

English: 
requires a certain belief, in a system
which doesn't need to be actualized at every instant. The threat alone makes the Law
so that's the virtuality of the Symbolic
Which we can also recognize in the fact that today
on a broader and more political scale (I spoke about it this morning)
we don't directly believe in what we believe
when you believe
what you believe

English: 
you believe you are believing
that is, for our belief to be effective
there always needs to be someone else believing in our stead
for example, when we talk about religious fundamentalists, etc.
we're always talking about someone else who's doing the believing -- we don't really believe
the very notion of religious protocol
is something that mediates this belief
that is, we mediate the action of believing because otherwise we don't believe directly
because in a sense, belief is always virtual
and it hinges on the very structure of words
'believing' can never be direct --
because the word itself possesses its own reflexivity

English: 
so when I believe, I can only believe that I am believing, the word reflects back on itself
it's the reflexivity proper to semantics -- therefore, I cannot believe directly
so, all of our beliefs are mediated
this means that in the same way that we believe in Santa Claus, we believe in elections -- that is, in democracy
because even if we don't really believe in it, like kids do
there is something in us that doesn't want to spoil the belief for someone else who really believes in it
so we harbour in ourselves an other who would really believe, in democracy
because we can very well see that we're not in a democracy, it's so obvious

English: 
how can we be in a democracy and arrive in a deadlock such that the two main candidates are practically interchangeable
they belong to the same system and the nuances of their platforms are ridiculous
and so far removed from the political questions that should be relevant for our society
we can see that the virtuality of the Symbolic is effective in the domains of the Law and belief
and this is the Real, in a sense, because we have seen that the virtual is the Real
if we approach the virtuality of the Real, that is, the Real of the Real

English: 
this is what we're going to find -- it's quite close actually, in what I spoke about in the beginning with the University
as soon as there are rules, and an official and explicit text
what constitutes the community of those who adhere to this official, explicit text
is what is precisely not official and explicit, what is between the lines
(reading between the lines is better for your eyes)
because here, we're going to find the notion of obscenity
whether it's --
Žižek gives the example of the army

English: 
the army has a series of rules which must be obeyed
but what creates the solidarity of an army is not these rules, it's how they deal between the rules
in their ways, which are even more vile, I would say
that's where there are instances of bullying, initiation rites, homosexuality -- obscene things
things that are never officially recognized, which are the Real of the Symbolic rules
so we see that the Real is what doesn't fit in the Symbolic, what can't be covered by the Symbolic
the Real is an inherent limit of the Symbolic
we find that in the United States with the Ku Klux Klan

English: 
there are the official rules of the community of white people who organize laws of the State, etc.
and then, between the lines of the official rules, those who participate in the punishment rituals of the KKK
and it can happen that those rules are more recognized by the community, while they work against the written law
while they are invested in these unwritten laws which are precisely those of the Real
so you can see that in this domain of the Real virtual
we have something that resembles the superego
that's why the superego is of the order of the Real

English: 
in the Lacanian description of the passage from -- the Ideal Ego, in identification
the Ideal Ego is when you identify yourself directly with someone's features -- someone you admire as a child, someone you'd like to be
here, we're in the Imaginary -- that is, it's a direct identification
that's the topic of the Imaginary -- when you're in the Symbolic, it's the Ego-ideal
that is, you don't identify yourself directly with the one you love
however, you put yourself in a position that makes you seem (to yourself) worthy of being loved by the one that you love
there,  you're in Symbolic identification
you do things in a way that makes you lovable in the eyes of the one that you love - that's the Ego-ideal

English: 
between the two, what language (the Symbolic) can't cover, there is the superego
and the superego is so terrible, has such ravaging effects
because it is Real
it doesn't fit, it escapes the framework of the Symbolic
that's why Lacan says that causality is Symbolic, but the Cause is Real
Only things that stumble have a cause -- there is a cut, we can't go back
what happens with the superego is that the superego usually gives you contradictory commands
that is, it will force you to do something, and make fun of you if you can't do it
humour is the only thing we can use against the superego
because it has a certain humour itself, but it's a very nasty sense of humour

English: 
the superego is pretty brutal!
for neurotics, at least
because it's precisely something that's missing in psychosis
of course, in the clinic it's not the same thing when it's a question of regulating the relationship with this superego
and that's where there's something very interesting about the complete relevance of psychoanalysis today
it's never been more relevant
we have never needed psychoanalysis more than we do today.
and this precisely because its paradigm has changed
that is, in Freud's era, psychoanalytic subversion

English: 
occurred in the sense that the superego was so well ingrained, embodied, in a way
so psychoanalysis rather had the function of liberating frustrations that were unbearable for subjects
because they had internalized such powerful prohibitions
that they couldn't have a blossoming sexual life, they were inhibited in their own acts, etc.
so psychoanalysis, at that time, had the role of allowing them to understand the construction behind things
that is, how desire, through the mediation of fantasy
had come to play a part such that the perception of the world
made it such that these subjects were unable to access certain things

English: 
and the potential of the drives had to be somehow liberated
at least, insofar as they nourish desire
but today the paradigm is completely different
because in today's society it's totally different
since today, the injunction IS 'enjoy!'
ENJOY! If you don't enjoy it's bad, you're not normal.
today everything is arranged so that we are bombarded all day long
with the news, advertisements, everything that goes on in the media, etc.
with an injunction to enjoy
"You don't have such and such object, you don't have the latest Apple product that just came out..."

English: 
"You don't have the latest console, you don't have....
... you don't have a sex life where you have 40 partners in a week..."
all this is today a permanent injunction to enjoyment
WITH the counterpoint of, "If you do not enjoy" -- consuming is enjoying -- "you are guilty. You aren't enjoying enough".
so today, psychoanalysis is occupied with -- since it's a clinic of discourse --
making the subject able to detach her/himself enough from the dominant discourses
to create a space in which s/he is no longer obligated to enjoy
we remove the obligation to enjoyment. It doesn't mean we prohibit enjoyment, it's not the same thing

English: 
but there is no more obligation to enjoy.
You do not have to profit.
this means that there is breathing room
that's why Lacan said that psychoanalysis is an artificial lung
in this possibility of a two-person social link that the analysand can forge with the analyst
in this clinic of discourse there is the possibility for the subject analysand
to open up a new space in which he is no longer obligated to enjoy
or to feel guilty. So s/he is liberated from guilt
which has been weighing on her/him in an irrational way since the beginning
regardless of what s/he has done, guilt weighs on her/him.

English: 
IT'S YOUR FAULT !!!!
that's also the confusion between guilt and responsibility, but we'll return to that
because I wanted to take advantage of the relevance of psychoanalysis and of
and of this virtual School of Psychoanalysis, this Impossible School
to remind you -- Žižek does, too, and he's right to do it --
that Freud as well as Lacan
unlike those who are at the top of the psychoanalytic institutions today
or all these psychoanalysts who read texts, putting themselves in the position of those who give lessons to others

English: 
so, of professors -- it's not an accident that they're all university professors
actually Freud and Lacan were researchers
they are able to emit hypotheses
and, a few years later, question these hypotheses
and to realize that there had been an error
and the mistake that brings about the most subversive dimension of psychoanalysis
which is that at the beginning, for Freud,
trauma -- which is Real -- was, according to his idea
something terrible that had happened
and the Symbolic network, that is, the words through which the subject was able to register her/himself

English: 
had been re-routed, twisted
shaken up, unmoored, by an event
which was traumatic, Real, and that it was a question of finding where and how it happened
there was at that time also Otto Rank's research on birth trauma
but it was leading nowhere
and then, after Freud's famous analysis of the Wolf Man
remember that the Wolf Man realizes that -- no, Freud realizes that
the child saw the 'coitus a tergo' -- in Latin terms
today, in certain places, we would call it 'doggy style'

English: 
but at the time, people still spoke Latin, unlike our Minister of Education, a bright light shining above us
"I regret these thoughtless and unfounded remarks."
so, the Wolf Man would have seen the parental coitus a tergo
and, over the course of analysis, Freud realizes that
the trauma wasn't there. When he saw that it didn't traumatize him at all
it's just that it's incomprehensible for a child
so we have a sort of equivalent to this scene

English: 
-- you know I'm a big fan of David Lynch --
in 'Blue Velvet'
there is Isabella Rossellini, and Dennis Hopper
and Kyle Maclachlan in the closet
and there's a scene where Dennis Hopper has a gas mask on
and he breathes in this very violent way -- with Darth Vader in Star Wars it's kind of the same thing
and he gives violent commands to Isabella Rossellini, like "open your legs", "show it", etc.
and Kyle Machlachlan is watching from the closet

English: 
we can say that this is a typical construction of a child who saw a sexual scene
but it's not a sexual scene that traumatizes her/him, it's that there are no words for it
so it can't fit into her/his Symbolic space
and when it doesn't fit into the Symbolic, it creates a hole in the Symbolic fabric
and because it creates a hole, s/he is going to try to sew up the hole with stories
and that's a story, for example -- hearing the intense breath of the father during the act
or the mother's screams, etc --
it becomes this mask on the face, the passivity of the mother which is experienced in a certain way
everything gives rise to a Symbolic interpretation, a Symbolic putting-into-words of this traumatic scene

English: 
which is traumatic only in the sense that we can't quite manage to suture the thing
so it was when he had elaborated his own theory of what it was
so, after the fact, that the memory comes in
and there, the trauma is
the Real is something that comes retroactively - that's the Freudian 'Nachtrag'
when s/he isn't able to suture it that the memory comes back and assumes the status of a trauma
language is a poor tool
that's why we have no idea of the Real
it's Real to the extent that the minimal definition of the Real for Lacan

English: 
it that it cannot be inscribed into the Symbolic
there is something that escapes, like I told you earlier -- what escapes the regulations of the army
it's super regulated - the way one must place a knife and fork at the officers' mess
nothing is given to chance -- it cannot cover the Real
the Real is what slips in between the lines, what can't be normalized
and that's the strongest stuff, that's what holds the place of the virtual
we come back to the etymological origin of 'virtual' -- 'virtus' which means 'strength'
so we can see that the virtual is precisely what is powerful
so, to finish with the Wolf Man

English: 
Freud notices that it isn't the trauma that is original for the subject
it's at the stage when the subject is in the Symbolic and is trying to put words on what happened
and it doesn't work -- s/he doesn't manage to suture it, and it keeps overflowing
there, retroactively -- we go back to the retroactive logic of the signifier in Lacan
we signal a Real that SHOULD HAVE happened -- that's where the Real is a logical moment --
for it to have had a direct effect on the subject
the future will have been anterior
it's only retroactively, because it hasn't been written into the symbolic thread

English: 
and at the beginning, Freud, like all of us, thought that
first there is the symbolic space
because language pre-exists us, and as the Scriptures say, "at the beginning there was the Word"
the Word has always been there
and so, there would have been a perfect Word
that is, a perfect Symbolic situation exists
which a Real would have then come to disturb
and then he realizes that that's not it at all
it's that the Symbolic space is already perforated
because otherwise there would be no space for the Real to exist

English: 
'in the real, at the same time hole and light'
that's why Žižek is right to drive the point home, with Miller and Soler
because they are academics who have no idea of the Lacanian Real
because they make it into a 'Real unconscious'
as if under the unconscious, there was another unconscious
-- more real, more substantial, etc.

English: 
there Miller regresses to a catastrophic Jungian level
because the unconscious, for Lacan as for Freud, is not something that determines the phenomenology of our acts 'a priori'
it is something that is born at the moment of the renewed social link between analyst and analysand
and it takes hold in the speech of the analysand that the analyst interprets
the unconscious exists in words
so, ''the unconscious structured like a language" is the only one!

English: 
Lacan even says it, "there is only one unconscious, and I think about it all the time, every day."
well, yeah!
so... let's say the initial Freudian ideal
of a Symbolic thread -- a speech that would be perfect 
because it's a divine speech, in a way
let's not forget that Freud was Jewish, and even though he claims to be atheist
and his last book calls monotheism into question...
he himself undermines the possibility of his discovery being appropriated by Judaism

English: 
and in this he removes himself from Judaism
nonetheless, in 'Mittel Europa' he was one of the most cultured people in the world
Freud was extremely well-read
all of a sudden, the radical subversiveness of his contribution...
of what he speaks of, of the unconscious
is that the Symbolic space --
he doesn't say it like that, these are still Lacanian words
now I'm much more immersed in Lacanian terminology because
Lacan takes -- he doesn't challenge any of what Freud says -- he takes all of Freud,
situates himself in the Freudian tradition, and deploys all of its logical consequences
it's that the Symbolic is already perforated
so Lacan will later say that logic itself is perforated

English: 
THE REAL IS THE NON-ALL OF REALITY
that's why, in the entire Lacanian conceptual arsenal
which is absolutely rigorous in terms of logic
at some point, there is a hole. In this hole he needs to put a myth
that is, the myth of Lamella, the Lacanian Lamella
which is an equivalent of the Freudian myth but displaced, for Lacan
of the Freudian Primal Father of the Horde
it's the myth of the Lamella, the 'Hommelette' -- ('omelette-man')
you know the expression...?
no? He talks about the 'Hommelette'
that is, we are omelette-men
and the Freudian discovery is that actually there is a hole

English: 
and then Žižek creates a frightening parallel
you know that at one point there is a correlation
between Freud and Einstein
and incidentally Einstein is extremely respectful of Freud
and Einstein accomplishes the exact same reversal with quantum physics
that is, at the beginning, in his conceptualization
he thinks that the universe is curved because the density of matter creates the curvature of the universe
but since he, too, like Lacan and Freud, is a thinker
he's not an academic
he stages his own speech, his own research
he discovers that in fact, that's not it

English: 
actually, the universe is ALREADY curved
the curve of the universe takes priority, and
and matter itself then comes in, representing the possibility of forgetting this curvature
but the universe is already curved, just as the space of the Symbolic is already curved
so whether it's in the field of science or the field of quantum physics, the exact same principles are at stake
so here we have -- we can say that the Real of psychoanalysis
is not quite the same as the Real of science
at least, science as scientists present it
but the subject of psychoanalysis, its touch of Real, is the same: it's the Cartesian subject
and to provide an example of what this Real virtuality is

English: 
because I was on the topic of the Real qua virtual
the clearest example is a scientific one: think of a particle attractor
so, imagine a giant magnet
and iron particles that organize themselves into a curve
with what we call the limit function in mathematics
coming as close as possible to it without ever being able to meet it
and this force field, which doesn't exist in a substantial way
which doesn't exist in itself, but which makes it that this curve exists
this is precisely the Real qua virtual
that is, the Real qua virtual is a point which is a hole
which makes it that things cannot join together, can't stick

English: 
so what would be today -- because you know that I insist on the political dimension of Lacan
which goes further than that of today's political philosophers
including those like Alain Badiou who have quite a strong, logical approach
but Lacan goes much further because he re-includes this notion of the Real
and if we, too, re-include this notion of the Real, we will encounter it in all aspects of daily life
and what happens at the political level
so the simplest example is this curved space which pre-exists, which is originally curved
or in this Symbolic space in which our subject gets caught, which is already perforated
well, it's the same thing with society
no perfect society has ever existed

English: 
'The problem is that humanity doesn't coincide with itself...'
society has always been problematic
and this problem, of course...
when we don't want to accept that there is this Real, this element which is a hole, this Real qua virtual
which prevents society from sticking together, from going well
we will go and find an external cause
that's the thing. Of course, in the '40s it was the Jews
even before, in the '30s
because, what isn't going well? Society isn't going well
so because we don't want to accept that society originally doesn't go well
that it's something that can't go well -- and that's already there in Hegel
society cannot be substantial, it can't correspond to itself

English: 
therefore, we find external elements which are at fault
so you have the Jews -- today, the Jews maintain the sad privilege of being those who are blamed for everything that doesn't work
today there are others... Arabs, immigrants...
there are always external causes of the fact that it doesn't work
whereas the 'it doesn't work' is the constitutive, primordial dimension, it's the Real itself
and that's what the University discourse strips us of
because every time the discourse will try to integrate this Real in saying that everything is there, in the discourse
there is no more space for the Real, there -- that's why they aren't speaking, these so-called psychoanalysts
who cold a bunch of conferences, congresses, etc. They read texts, because they don't want the Real

English: 
if they actually spoke, they would make slips, say stupid things, like I do
but they don't want that
because the ideology is that 'we have totally mastered the Real'
because we know where to place it -- "here it appears as objet 'a' ... there it appears in this part of the subject"... etc.
so they evacuate any Real there might be
so the dimension of the Real paradoxically, in this School, well, we're going to try not to avoid it
at least in its manifestations of obscene enjoyment (jouissance)
because if we compare today's psychoanalytic schools to the army
because seriously, if you look at the commanders who are at the head, it's not too far from the army
there are very precise rules: you must send in your texts a certain number of days in advance...
for proofreading, for the simultaneous translation, etc.
a bunch of regulations like that so that nothing goes outside the frame...

English: 
so, the evacuation of the Real is regulated, in these things
so what are we going to do, because I'm telling you that it's a School based solely on free participation
where there is no hierarchy
because the only ones who are part of the School -- that's the performativity of language --
are those who declare themselves to be part of it
and who are producing texts and remarks which put them, de facto, in this position of the School
which is initially virtual
in the weak sense of virtual reality
what makes it weak? It's very simple, I talked about it last time
it's just that the social media, the internet, etc. evacuate the real of the body, quite simply

English: 
and it's much easier to write things than to say them in front of people
there are things you wouldn't say... lots of people allow themselves to say things on the internet that they would never say in real life
for fear of getting a slap in the face, they're careful of what they say
but here [on the internet], anything goes...
you really get the vomit of moralizing, of clear conscience
but who are themselves unable to have the ethics to impose on themselves --
so, this is one of the dimensions of the School --
of course, we don't say anything other than what we would say in front of someone
we don't need to be limited by the other
it's a question of finding one's own limit in one's own speech

English: 
which is different, it's a different exercise, because the counterpoint of that is telling the truth
because otherwise it's meaningless -- whether it's to talk about Trump and Clinton
or the French presidential candidates, there's no point
because you can see that there's no democracy
the system is not one that is organized by other people
the system itself is the product of the Other, the Other qua language
there is no Other of the Other --
language insofar as it tries to cover the Real
leads to a bunch of deadlocks, compromises, etc.
that's why psychoanalysis can only be a clinic of discourse
how you say things, how you represent them, what discourse you're immersed in

English: 
is entirely constitutive of your reality
'The words you say and write, the associations they evoke, the vocabulary they come from...
the syntax that ties them together, don't just describe your 'world', they constitute your reality, the 'moteriality' which is your own...
they reveal the discourse your subject is immersed in.'
So the counterpoint of the School is to tell the truth through texts and comments, etc.
and then, effectively, meet as we are doing
or as it happened there, at the signature, or at other moments
we meet directly as speaking bodies

English: 
but this time we're a little like, as Lacan said, scattered and misplaced
we don't automatically make up a community
just because we say that we follow this rule or that rule
it's from there that the obscene dimension gets established
the superego aspect in relation to the law
because as you know, the superego is the shadow of the law, its obscene aspect
'Superfluous laws weaken the necessary ones.'
and then it becomes a game of alliances, calculations, exchanging clients, etc.
obviously we don't want all that shit
it's in this sense that the Real is a paradoxical Real

English: 
because the most powerful thing about the Real is its potential to happen
because the paradox is that it's the impossible that happens
so I noticed that this idea brought up lots of questions since the last seminar -- how can the impossible happen?
it's precisely BECAUSE it's impossible that it happens!
'The impossible happens'
'Lacan opposes the ruling words of the Capitalist Discourse 'everything is possible', with the more sober remark: the impossible happens (in retroactively positing its presuppositions)'

English: 
that's the paradox -- because you have to imagine that it's not possible within the Symbolic network
because the Symbolic network itself, this chain of signifiers
possesses its own logic, which deploys itself
so you can deploy all the possible situations, say what can happen, because you are caught up in this Symbolic network
and the Real is something that breaks into it
it's the thing you didn't plan on. So it happens, the impossible happens
it was impossible because you didn't plan on it
so it happens as impossible, and as impossible, it retroactively creates its own possibility of happening
so that's what it means to say 'the Real as impossible happens'
that's where Lacan, since he knows all the linguistic subtleties of syntax, etc.

English: 
in response to the Capitalist promise of "Everything is possible"...
we've seen it several times -- Sarkozy's poster says, "With me, everything is possible"
for Hollande, it's "Now, change is possible", for Obama it was "Yes we can!"
"We can, it's possible"
... Lacan says "The impossible happens".
and we have to decode and interpret this formula
it's the impossible in the sense that -- the possible has a relationship to the Symbolic
and the impossible is what doesn't fit in the Symbolic
but it still happens! And then the Symbolic tries to cover it
that's also what Hegel calls --
that's why Hegelian dialectics -- i.e. the logic he puts into place
in his Science of Logic, and even before that in the Phenomenology of Spirit

English: 
It's something that's very close to the retroactive performativity of the signifier in Lacan
the way in which the signifier will retroactively, by going back on the signifying chain --
-- as we saw with the Wolf Man -- become effective
and so, the Real is grasped, in a way, through the signifier
so this Impossible School of Psychoanalysis is
an adventure that has been initiated in terms of discourse
because that's one of the possibilities afforded by the analyst's discourse
to gather apart from the confined circles of psychoanalysts
especially now, with the psychological deviations from psychoanalysis -- it's horrifying!

English: 
that is, psychologists know nothing about psychoanalysis
they don't realize to what extent the respective logics of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are antagonistic
they want to give everything a meaning
'this is that, that means this', etc.
because in psychoanalysis it's precisely the opposite, we always try to shave off this overgrowth of meaning
which comes to plug the hole of the real, and let another meaning (sense) come through
which is, this time, an enigma
because interpretation is always an enigma, in psychoanalysis
if you get, 'this is this', you didn't get an interpretation
it remains an enigma because an enunciation is always an enigma
"The enigmas of the Egyptians were Enigmas for the Egyptians themselves" - Hegel

English: 
and the enunciation is the grain of sand
it is the part of the subject that is Real
there are two sides of the subject: there is the Symbolic side, because s/he is caught in language
the Real side is precisely what is never reducible to language
it is what resists symbolisation
it's what ensures that 'I' is always separated from the one who says it
by a breath
'A breath always separates your 'I' from that inside you which says 'I'. You don't exist.'
language can't grasp, can't wrap itself around this Real
because it's an empty point -- like the attractor we were talking about earlier
and that is what we also find in sexual difference

English: 
because men and women are absolutely not complimentary, as you know
because the analogy of male and female electrical plugs only works for electrical plugs
men and woman are in a total incapacity to become what they already are
a woman tries to become a woman and a man tries to become a man
at the same time there is an internal impossibility not related to the fact that the other sex is too far away, but that is is too close!
but its signifier is repressed
so there too, Žižek is right to nail Miller, because he talks about binary logic, etc.
psychoanalysis does the exact opposite, it gets out of this infinite sexualized cosmology
between the dark side and the bright side, light and shadows, Yin and Yang, etc.

English: 
there is a hole there! It doesn't stick together because the other signifier, the binary signifier, is always repressed
and that's why we find that the Capitalist Discourse is the most effective one
to the extent that it becomes unstoppable
it can only constantly revolutionize itself
to avoid its own inherent antagonism
so as to not find itself facing its own inherent impossibility, it constantly deploys itself, integrating everything that comes up against it
it reintegrates it every time -- that's why we have paradigm reversals
from one era to another

English: 
in Freud's era prohibition was internalized -- mostly related to the possibility of having a flourishing sex life
today, you can easily see that the command is totally reversed
you are called on to participate in the Pride Parade, the Techno Parade, pornographic films
imagine that you have the right to, and proclaim your rights to do these things
and that's the beginning of this total absence of limits that is staged
which will paradoxically end up being registered in social rules
where there will be more and more restrictive laws, and less and less freedom
which perfectly complement this pseudo-liberalization

English: 
So the Real of the capitalist system
is that its own impossibility -- of course, Marx discovered it -- it's called class struggle
it's not difficult to understand, class struggle
I spoke to you about Levi-Stauss' 'Structural Anthropology' and 'Tristes Tropiques'
but that was to show that we were all already included in it
so, maybe that lets me say this:
if, at the beginning, we spontaneously think (like Freud or Einstein did) that there was something perfect

English: 
which was subsequently distorted, modified, and trashed, specifically by men
that is pure ideology, for example today the worst ideology is the ecologist one
it's the worst -- this kind of fantasy of Mother Earth
where everything would be perfect without men, but they had to go and bring their shit into it...
and they derailed everything... that's purely ideological
like for Freud, or for Einstein, it's already derailed, from the very beginning
and it's derailed, like I told you in an earlier seminar, because there is the Death Drive
that is, we can't imagine a world without men, because you have to already be a man to imagine a world without men
it's a logical deadlock
if we imagine something as men, we imagine it in words
if we imagine it in words, we're caught in the Symbolic chain, and thus we are subject to the Death Drive

English: 
so of course, the original setting -- (so called) paradise
it already has syphilis. There is no original paradise
things are already going badly
there is a phrase of Mao's: "There is great disorder under heaven, and the situation is excellent"
he had the right idea
we have to think that there never was a state in society or in life where everything was great
that's a pure fantasy that comes in after the fact
to make us believe that there was something pure and ideal at the beginning
and that something has gone to shit, as we now say it -- no.
it is already included from the beginning, that there is shit
so the way to situate oneself appropriately is to abandon this presupposition
and why do we do this? It's because we don't want to put ourselves as subject in the world we're describing

English: 
One of the most beautiful phrases from Giono --I love Giono! -- I've read all his books three or four times
... it goes back twenty years, but I was passionate about him... the quote is:
"I don't try to describe the world as it is, but how it is when I enter it, which of course doesn't simplify it."
we actually have already been added, in the perception we have of things
there is no pure, ideal objectivity, it doesn't exist
so, all these attempts to think that there was something original, like a paradise
which was then perverted by human involvement
is a pure ideology, it's the last stronghold of ideology

English: 
because just like Einstein and Freud we have to come to the conclusion that it's already there,
because we are already there as subjects
and as subjects, our work is to place words on things
at least, in a first approach.
because when we're infants, that's what we are without
-- 'infans' means 'unable to speak' --
that is, our ability to put words on things
but little by little, in trying to domesticate this Real that surrounds us
which is absolutely incommensurable -- with which we wonder what to do
we will develop the activity of the subject
that is, to be able to say things about, and describe this world

English: 
but of course it will be accompanied by this idealization of the world
as we imagine it was before we got here
but of course, that's an ideal
which is totally washed away in psychoanalysis, it's part of the Imaginary
except, of course, for Miller and Soler, who think there's a 'deeper' unconscious, a 'Real' unconscious
that's where it lodges itself
whereas for Freud and for Lacan
no, we are already participants in this world we are describing
and it is our own subject that we are searching for
lost in the world of objects
and our enjoyment (jouissance), which we hold on to more than anything else, that's it...
that's what will transform itself either into objet 'a', when we give into the injunctions of the ruling discourse
of the Capitalist discourse

English: 
"Consume, buy your Nintendo console... the latest phone, etc."...
"you're behind the times"... etc.
... all the guilt that comes with it...
or, instead, the only way available to us
which we can write in several ways
is that of finding this ' j'ouïs-sens ' (enjoymeant) in speech
that is, through the possibility of becoming the subject of our own destiny --
-- that's the psychoanalytic wager -- and, finding enough enjoyment in speech for the story to continue.
