Elements of Epistemology

Jacques-Alain Miller
http://www.lacan.com/symptom/?p=37
This is the last of three lectures which I have been invited to deliver. In my first lecture here I introduced the work
and style of ac!ues "acan# and althou$h time constraints did not allow me to $o beyond half of what I had planned to
tell you# I think I was able to $ive an idea of the theoretical principles whose uninterrupted development started more
than thirty years a$o.
In my second lecture I attempted to use the e%ample of the piropo or flirtatious messa$e# which I improvised# as a
paradi$m# in order to transmit some truths which are fundamental and yet unreco$ni&ed about lan$ua$e' in particular#
about the function of lan$ua$e in se%ual separation# the fadin$ of the reference# the e!uivocation of lan$ua$e
(lan$ue)# the misunderstandin$ of communication.
I am $oin$ to dedicate this third lecture to the !uestion of science# and more precisely to respond# as far as I am
able# to *rofessor +ardenas# to whose invitation I owe my presence here (I have already thanked him# and I now
thank him a$ain)# and whose reaction# after my last e%position# was to say that# in the way in which I presented it# the
"acanian theory appeared to conclude in the impossibility of knowled$e. ,air enou$h. -fter all# the impossibility of
knowled$e does not scare me# since knowled$e is not science. The difference between knowled$e and science appears
to me to be fundamental in "acan.s epistemolo$y. and acceptable well beyond the strict field of psychoanalysis.
,or $reater convenience# I shall divide this lecture into ten points which I shall cover successively. This means that
this lecture will have a style and a tone different to the previous one.
I. /ne can postulate that throu$hout the history of thou$ht the theory of knowled$e has always upheld the ideal#
which has been formulated in various ways# of the union of sub0ect and ob0ect. 1ore precisely# the classical theory of
knowled$e assumes a co2naturality of sub0ect and ob0ect# a pro2established harmony between# the sub0ect who knows
and the ob0ect known. The theory of knowled$e has always commented on the miracle of the ade!uation of
knowled$e# reservin$ a place for the2thin$2in2itself which# in 3ant.s terms# would be unknowable.
,rom its be$innin$s# science has been distin$uished from knowled$e# if only because the former constructs its
ob0ect. This principle# let it be understood# is not specifically "acanian. It is also the principle of 4achelard# for
e%ample# for whom the ob0ect and the scientific instrument are an incarnated theory 5 that is his e%pression. I point
out that the same thin$ happens with the ,reudian unconscious: in so far as this is apprehended in the novel device of
,reud.s practice# it also reali&es a theory.
6hich theory? This is the whole !uestion. This is a first and brief point which is open to discussion# and I should
say that it is not specifically "acanian.
II. The second point is more precise. It is pertinent to notice that all knowled$e is fundamentally illusory and
mythical# in so far as what it does is to comment on the 7se%ual proportion#8 a term with which 9avid 1auri has very
appropriately translated the ,rench e%pressionrapport se%uel used by "acan. -ll theory of knowled$e has se%ual
connotations. :ou can take as an e%ample -ristotle.s complementarity between form and matter. :ou can also think of
that very elaborate form of knowled$e# ancient +hinese astrolo$y# which is a whole discourse about the male and the
female and which or$ani&es not only the $ods but also the entire society. These are e%amples that "acan considers in
his seminar The ,our ,undamental +oncepts of *sycho2analysis. ;imilarly# one can recall the theory of phlo$iston# so
compellin$ and present durin$ the seventeenth and ei$hteenth centuries# before the emer$ence of scientific chemistry.
I would say since I cannot e%pose all the historical e%amples# that knowled$e# in so far as it is distin$uished from
science# sin$s indefinitely the ima$inary weddin$ of the male and the female principles. I believe it would not be an
abusive $enerali&ation to state that all the 7primitive forms8 of knowled$e are erotic. In the last analysis# they even
$et mi%ed up with the se%ual techni!ues.. That is why "acan.s thesis thatThe woman does not e%ist 5 which# in the way
I presented it# appeared to be somehow abrupt# astonishin$ 5 is certainly a fundamental thesis for epistemolo$y as
well. ;ince the ob0ect# which in the theory of knowled$e is meant to be complementary to the sub0ect# represents also
a way of tamin$ the woman. ;cience 5 and by science I mean what was born as mathematical physics in the
seventeenth century# and also mathematics proper# born well before that time. the $ap between the birth of
mathematics and the birth of mathematical physics bein$ a bi$ problem of the history of sciences 5 science# then# in
this strict sense# assumes on the contrary that there is no co2naturality between sub0ect and ob0ect# that there is no
aesthesia of the opposite se%# that there is no natural se%ual tropism. This is# furthermore# demonstrated by that
structure which is fundamental to psychoanalysis and which introduced ,reud to his practice# that is to say# hysteria. It
is certainly one of the most surprisin$ theses of "acan.s epistemolo$y 5 which I may not have enou$h time to develop
here 5 that the structure of scientific discourse is not without relation with the structure of the discourse of hysteria. In
this respect# "acan.s proposition that there is no se%ual rapport (or ratio) may be considered as a sort of secret
condition for the emer$ence of the discourse of science. In a certain way# the men who developed the discourse of
science in the seventeenth century must have posed the proposition that there is no se%ual rapport. Those who are
familiar with the te%ts from the <enaissance# for e%ample# and the te%ts which have been preserved from the
seventeenth and ei$hteenth centuries produced by astrolo$ists and philosophers# know about that evident and sudden
break in style and in the very approach to problems. /ne could say# in this sense# that the scientific approach assumes
a de2se%uali&ation of the view of the world# and to use a philosophical e%pression# a de2se%uali&ation of bein$ in the
world. *sychoanalysis is not at all a pan2se%ualism. *an2se%ualism is# for e%ample# the theory of ;chopenhauer# which
places life at its start' or# more precisely# which places at its start the se%ual instinct# which would animate the entire
nature as well as all human creations. ,reud# awkwardly perhaps# but in a very si$nificant manner# introduced the
parado%ical term of death instinct# and he discovered# throu$h the an$le of hysteria# that the other se% is the /ther
se%# written with the bi$ = of e%teriority. I restrict myself to mere allusions to the works of epistemolo$ists. Those who
know such works will be able to 0ud$e the pertinency of this summary.
III. /ne can ask what it is that $enerates the pan2se%ualist illusion. It seems to me that this illusion# which falls
precisely with the emer$ence of the discourse of science# but not before# is# in this connection# somethin$ recent.
6hat $ives birth to the pan2se%ualist illusion is that all si$nification# bein$ ima$inary# is fundamentally se%ual. -ll
which is said and which makes sense always reveals that# in the end# it aims at a uni!ue si$nification that occupies the
place of reference 5 reference which does not e%ist in natural lan$ua$e# in the maternal ton$ue# in vul$ar lan$ua$e'
and this si$nification# which occupies the place of the reference which is lackin$# is fundamentally phallic. This is what
confers interest and value on that very ancient e%ercise of discourse called comedy# which has always consisted in
makin$ one lau$h while revealin$ the ima$inary ob0ect which all discourses surround and at which they aim# namely#
the phallus. There is a paper by "acan in this respect which he delivered in >ermany in the ?@A=s# entitled 9ie
4edeutun$ des *hallus (The si$nification of the phallus). Indeed# it is necessary to understand that the phallus is the
fundamental 4edeutun$ or si$nification. This idea may appear to be somehow e%cessive' but not if one considers that
for instance ,re$e# who is at the ori$ins of mathematical lo$ic# proposed the theory that all that is said can be
classified in two ways: first the e%pressions which have the true as reference and then those e%pressions which have
the false as reference. Be ima$ined that lan$ua$e has everyday ob0ects as reference. Cow then# the simplification of
the formulation provided by "acan states that the sole reference is the si$nification of the phallus. -nd there is a
discourse for this malediction# which could well be called a benediction. In any case# there is a law of diction# accordin$
to which the phallus is always there' it always reveals itself in a pertinent way in the lapsus or in the 0oke. /ne could
say: 7"ook for the phallus# it is never very distant. 7 There is# however# a discourse which escapes this law of diction#
and that is the discourse of science. 4ut this is precisely# and I stress this point# because this discourse constitutes
itself only from the moment of the e%tinction of si$nification# from the construction of systematic networks of elements
which are in themselves. This is the thesis which can be discussed# and which does not re!uire a detailed knowled$e of
the "acanian phraseolo$y: science supposes the e%tinction of si$nification. It is a mistake to believe that measurement
is constitutive of science. 1athemati&ation does not mean measurement. Dvidence of this is to be found for instance in
topolo$y. Topolo$y is a $eometry without measurement where there is no !uestion of distances# where only the
schematic network of the si$nifier supports the ob0ects. These ob0ects do not have any consistency' they do not
possess any substance other than the network of si$nifiers itself. Dvidently# at the be$innin$s of topolo$y ob0ects were
represented' for e%ample# that sin$ular ob0ect called the 1oebius strip was represented. It is possible to construct this
ob0ect before one.s eyes: one takes a ribbon# and instead of 0oinin$ its ends to form a cylinder# one 0oins its ends after
makin$ a twist throu$h ?E= de$rees. This ob0ect is obviously curious: if one slides a fin$er on its ed$e# the fin$er
appears on the other side of the ribbon# without havin$ passed throu$h any frontier. In the case of a cylinder# the
fin$er remains always on the same side' there are two sides: a back and a front. 6ith the 1oebius strip one can#
without interruption# move from the back to the front. It is a very sin$ular ob0ect which had to wait until ?EF= to be
discovered by the mathematician 1oebius. This is rather e%traordinary# one wonders why this simple# small operation
could not be performed before that date. This is the first topolo$ical ob0ect which "acan has utili&ed to e%plain that one
should not be contented with the thou$ht2that thin$s always have a front and a back# that the unconscious is at the
bottom and lan$ua$e is at the surface. There is# on the contrary# a relation of 1oebius strip which makes it possible
that correlation and continuity between the ri$ht side out and the reverse become conceivable in a scientific manner.
In this respect# "acan has taken advanta$e of these topolo$ical ob0ects derived from scientific discourse in order to
structure the analytic e%perience. /ne should not believe that because in the analytic e%perience one is faced with
phenomena which appear to be parado%ical from the point of view of common sense it is impossible to analy&e them
scientifically. That what is in the e%terior is at the same time in the interior is not simply a witticism. ,or e%ample#
there is an ob0ect called a 3lein bottle# which was invented by the mathematician ,eli% 3lein soon after the invention of
1oebius. strip. The 3lein bottle materiali&es# mathematically# a relationship between inside and outside which places
the outside# if I may use the e%pression# inside the outside. I would need more time to $ive you a. summary of the
works by "acan which located the main terms of the analytic discourse in topolo$ical fi$ures. I should say that this is
only the -4+ of topolo$y# since these ob0ects can be desi$ned. :ou can have a 1oebius strip in front of your eyes. :ou
can have a 3lein bottle in front of your eyes# in three dimensions# only in an appro%imate form' but it can still be
drawn. Then# with al$ebraic topolo$y# the ob0ects can no lon$er be drawn: what is called an ob0ect is a pure creation of
mathematical discourse.
Therefore# we should not take as a criterion of science what e%perimental science has believed it can define as
scientific in its own case. I must tell you that all that we accept as scientific disciplines in the schools of humanities#
that is sociolo$y# psycholo$y# medicine# is very often a 0oke in the eyes of a mathematician or a physicist. I say this
only to make it clear that the concept of science is more comple% than simply tryin$ to be ob0ective. -s Bamlet has it:
There are more thin$s in heaven and earth# Boratio.
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The fate of science is tied to formali&ation# not to measurement. It is tied to the number in so far as the number
represents in an eni$matic way the presence of the si$nifier in the real. I shall return to this point later. "acan
represents an attempt to formali&e the structure which supports the phenomenolo$y of the analytic e%perience. It is
evident that this is a comple% structure# since the phenomena which occur in the analytic e%perience induce# in a first
approach# the feelin$ that they cannot be structured. :et metaphor can be structured' metonymy can be structured'
e!uivocation can be structured' the function of the /ther in the determination of sense can be structured. This is# in a
sense# an ama&in$ feat. The feat consists in $raspin$# with the discourse of science# a Beld that science was prepared
to leave to obscurantism# that is to say# to leave as the refu$e of fantasies of se%ual knowled$e.
This is why I was able to say# in my first lecture# that "acan.s teachin$ was a critical and epistemolo$ical teachin$#
opposed to all obscurantist discourses which have found refu$e# in the era of science# in the psychotherapeutic $ame.
IG. /nce a$ain# I am $oin$ to formulate a thesis which in my opinion has consistency outside the "acanian
phraseolo$y# and which I submit for the consideration of teachers and students who are not specialists in "acan.
;cience assumes the dis0unction of the symbolic and the ima$inary# of the si$nifier and the ima$e. "acan has often
commented on the works of -le%andre 3oyrH# one of the $reatest ,rench epistemolo$ists# on >alileo# 3epler and
Cewton. *rofessor +adenas told me that science is somethin$ which $ives birth# for instance# to the e!uation of
$ravitation. This is also the e%ample that "acan uses as a model. 4ut the emer$ence of the key e!uations of
$ravitation theory re!uired 5 "acan# on the basis of 3oyrH.s studies# points this out 5 the disappearance of all the
ima$inary values attributed to the movements of the stars. It re!uired# accordin$ to "acan.s e%pression# the
e%termination of all ima$inary symbolism from heaven. 6hat was. at bottom# the 7epistemolo$ical obstacle8 5 to use
4achelard.s now famous e%pression 5 which opposed a barrier to the formulation of the e!uations of Cewton.s theory?
"et us consider 3epler.s e%ample. 3epler could still think that. $iven the eminent di$nity of the stars and their superior
value# the orbits of planets should have a perfect form. >iven that re!uirement of perfection# the movement of planets
could not possibly be elliptical# but circular. This ima$inary theory assumed that the circle# is more perfect than the
ellipse' hence the re!uirement# I would say# of an aesthetic and ima$inary character# that the movement of the planets
be circular. Cewton.s e!uation could only be formulated from the moment when there was a renunciation of the
attribution of any ima$inary si$nification to heaven' from the moment when thinkin$ of the di$nity of the planets
ceased' when there was a renunciation of the re!uirement of perfection and one could be contented with those small
symbols which can be written on a sheet of paper and which are valid for the entire creation.
In this sense# scientific theory has demanded. an adherence to the si$nifier in so far as this is separated from all
ima$inary si$nification is amusin$ that this did not prevent Cewton from scrutini&in$ The 4ook of 9aniel and The
-pocalypse of ohn# in an attempt to decipher in the sacred te%t the future of creation and >od.s plan. -s with many
other attempts at that moment of birth of scientific discourse. Cewton could on the one hand e%terminate the celestial
si$nification# and on the other he looked for it# as a cabalist# by scrutini&in$ the biblical te%t. This is somethin$ which is
not very well known. It is not to be found in 3oyrH. but in "acan# who read Cewton.s te%t on The 4ook of 9aniel. "acan
has a copy of the edition of that time. It happened# then# as if si$nification# which had been e%cluded from heaven#
found refu$e in the sacred te%t. Cewton is not# in this connection# the man one usually thinks he is. ;omeone wrote a
beautiful article on Cewton. Be was a rather e%traordinary scholar# and not simply an economist: "ord 3eynes# ohn
1aynard 3eynes# who was very interested in Cewton. ;oon after the war he wrote an article in which he called Cewton
the last of the astrolo$ists. That was the parado% which e%isted at the ori$ins of the discourse of science:
simultaneously with his construction of mathematical physics# Cewton was passionately fond of astrolo$y. - thesis
published by 1IT in ?@7A or ?@7F has revealed a number of papers by Cewton concernin$ his research on physics.
This presents to us Cewton the individual as crossed by the epistemolo$ical cut. This is a remark aimed at avoidin$
any confusion between the individual and the sub0ect of science# in so far as the latter is tied up with the discourse of
science.
G. :ou must know *ascal.s sentence# which irritated *aul GalHry so much: 7The eternal silence of these infinite
spaces fri$htens me.8 GalHry was bothered by this sentence' he considered it to be a beautiful verse# but he thou$ht it
was rather melodramatic. *ascal was also one of those traversed by the epistemolo$ical cut. I would say somethin$
different to what GalHry said. *ascal.s sentence on the silence of the infinite spaces reveals a very modern affect# since
heavens# the creation# were not at all mute before the advent of science. /n the contrary# (he spaces# heavens# the
creation# the earth I sun$ the $lory of >od and the $randeur of Bis plan. It is precisely the discourse of science# since
the emer$ence of mathematical physics# that makes the world become silent. "acan sums up this proposition# which I
believe is un!uestionable# by sayin$ that science assumes that there e%ists in the world the si$nifier which means
nothin$ 5 and for nobody. That the si$nifier can be found in the world# a si$nifier which is or$ani&ed and which
responds to laws# but which is not linked with a sub0ect who would e%press himself throu$h itIthis is an entirely
modem and scientific idea. The si$nifier may e%ist independently of a sub0ect who e%presses himself throu$h its
mediation. This is a si$nifier separated from its si$nification' a si$nifier without intention. The mathemati&ation of
physics answers to this re!uirement. 4ut the ,reudian invention of the unconscious also responds to it: the si$nifier
e%ists independently of the consciousness that the sub0ect mi$ht have of it or its e%pression. It is rather the sub0ect
who is the effect of the functionin$ of si$nifyin$ laws. This is why "acan says# and history seems to confirm it# that
psychoanalysis was not possible before the advent of the discourse of science.
The scientific conte%t where the ,reudian discovery was born was very si$nificant. ,reud was the disciple of 4rJcke
and Belmholt&# >erman scientists who did not want to know anythin$ but the discourse of science. ,reud himself
remained faithful to that inspiration for the rest of his days. In this sense# psychoanalysis can be considered as the
manifestation of the positive spirit of science in a domain which has been specially resistant to the conceptual $rasp of
science. In a way# this has always been known. /ne cannot confuse ,reud and un$. If un$ broke with ,reud 5 and#
incidentally. it cost him three years of serious depression# apart from all the vicissitudes of history 5 it was because he
returned# with his bookThe Transformation of "ibido# to what in ancient times was called the soul of the world. This is
an old theory which has continued to be present in the history of thou$ht# and which treats nature in its entirety as a
bein$. It is a fundamental intuition which >erman romanticism# for e%ample# developed fully: it found a new youth
with the Caturphilosophie and even in our days somethin$ of the same order has made Teilhard de +hardin
fashionable. There have always been# and specially in the era of science# people who search for what they call a
complement of soul in these forms of knowled$e (savoirs) which are not scientific and yet are knowled$e# that is to
say# are or$ani&ed. The soul of the world: this is precisely what the discourse of science has put aside' this is a
movement which in history is incarnated by 9escartes. Throu$h this movement the scientific spirit separated from the
spirit# which should be called obscurantist# of the <enaissance. The ome$a of ,ather Teilhard de +hardin was the $rand
si$nified which was supposed to arran$e the whole of human history. ,urthermore# you must know as I do the part of
the theolo$y which still remains in 1ar%ism2"eninism. The separation between 4ossuet and 1ar% has not been
completely achieved.
GI. 6ith the discourse of science# >od ceases to speak. Be is silent# even hidden# as >oldmann said when
discussin$ <acine.s tra$edies inThe Bidden >od. Be is silent and hidden and he calculates# as somebody who is also at
the emer$ence of the discourse of science# "eibni& puts it. 3oyrH and 3o0Kve have analy&ed the relation between
science and udaeo2+hristian monotheism. Their thesis is that the discourse of science was only possible in a reli$ious
conte%t# where somethin$ totally new and sin$ular was postulated: the creation of the world e% nihilo by a divine
$rand /ther. The creation e% nihiloconstructed by the discourse of reli$ion permitted to trust the natural e%perience#
since throu$h the natural e%perience one can find the traces of a lo$ical creation. This is why science is not. perhaps#
as atheist as is $enerally believed. /n the other hand# in the discourse of science# the si$nifier means nothin$ within
nature' on the other hand# the si$nifier is there# in nature# in order to or$ani&e accordin$ to laws. This is why science
is always linked with the idea that there is already knowled$e (un savoir) in the real: an articulated network of
si$nifiers which function in the real independently of the knowled$e that we may have of it. /nce a$ain# the history of
science teaches us somethin$# this time in connection with Cewton. +artesians were scandalised by Cewton. They
considered that Cewton represented a return to obscurantism# since 5 and this is somethin$ that "acan as
epistemolo$ist has underlined 5 they wondered how was it possible that the planets knew Cewton.s laws of $ravitation.
Bow could the planets obey those laws? This constituted a return to the hidden !ualities which 9escartes has
dismissed. In this respect# Cewton says that he did not for$e hypotheses that would have only fictional e%istence. 6ith
his small si$nifyin$ articulation# he verifies that they function in the real. 1any thin$s are verified like that# which after
all there is no need to comprehend# and which evidently place >od in the hori&on of science. /ne can verify# for
e%ample# that certain plants arran$e their leaves accordin$ to the series of ,ibonacci# which is a re$ular order of
numbers in a series discovered in the thirteenth century. 9o plants know mathematics? -ll that mathematical physics
teaches us is the verification that there is a knowled$e (savoir) which functions in the real. In this sense# science
assumes >od in two forms. In the first place# it assumes >od as 9escartes reco$nised him# as the $uarantor of truth#
that is to say# as an element which does not deceive. There is a very precise demonstration by 9escartes in this
respect. -s >od is perfect# it would constitute an infraction to his perfection that he lied' therefore# and althou$h this
is a limit to his power. >od cannot lie. Cot bein$ able to lie does not constitute an impotence# but# on the contrary# an
e%cellence of power. This conviction about an element which does not deceive is completely decisive in science.
-vicenna said somethin$ similar: 7>od is shrewd# but Be is honest.8
The idea of >od.s honesty is not simply a 0oke of -vicenna.s# and althou$h it is believed that one does not believe
in >od# perhaps the belief in >od nevertheless persists. This is# besides# what "acan said one day in his seminar# where
there were appro%imately four times the number of people present here: that he was certain that there was not one
person in the audience who in fact did not believe in >od. In >od as the element which does not deceive. In the
be$innin$# that had the appearance of an act of faith# and the philosophical elaboration of divine perfection was an
essential component of the discourse of science. /ne should not think that philosophy consists simply of stories
floatin$ in the air. *hilosophy has had a decisive importance in the clarification of the discourse of science. This
concerns the first aspect of >od which I have evoked: >od as the $uarantor of truth' >od who does not deceive.
There is a second aspect# which refers to >od as supposed sub0ect of knowin$. This is somethin$ a$ainst which
there is no possible defence. 6hen there is a si$nifyin$ intention which assumes a concrete form and develops# one
cannot defend oneself a$ainst the idea that that si$nifyin$ intention has always been there. This is why we fre!uently
have difficulties in apprehendin$ past epochs or different principles of thou$ht# since the cate$ories within which we
are captured often appear to us to be so valid that we believe that they have always e%isted. 4ut# for e%ample# there is
nothin$ to prove that *lato had at all the sense of I (le sentiment du moi) that we have since the emer$ence of the
discourse of science. There is nothin$ to confirm the view that the idea that we may have of se%ual en0oyment
(0ouissance) is the same that the Dpicureans and the ;toics had. The same thin$ happens with scientific inventions. I
shall consider an e%ample which is more simple: that of +antor# who invented the uncountable infinite. Be developed
this invention in mathematics# not throu$h e%perimentation or measurement. Be invented it# undoubtedly# in a
sub0ective e%perience for which he paid# one could say# with his reason. It is known that +antor had a number of
admissions to psychiatric clinics. 6hat was the source of +antor.s references when he invented the uncountable
infinite? This is not to be found in a manual of mathematics# but it is mentioned in the works of 4ourbaki on the
history of mathematics. Those references are contained in the works and letters of +antor. +antor looked for
references in theolo$y. There is# as well as his mathematics# a theolo$y of +antor. ,or him the uncountable infinite and
set theory were means of approachin$ >od. Be thou$ht that at the moment of his invention of the uncountable infinite
he was >od.s administrative employee.
+antor.s abuses are of little interest to us. There is. however# a natural movement which consists in pro0ectin$ a
si$nifyin$ invention onto a supposed sub0ect of knowin$. It has obviously become more and more true# and a real
thin$ for us. +antor.s uncountable infinite is more true now than at the moment when +antor invented it. Cow it has
been $rasped# absorbed and developed by the discourse of mathematics. 9evelopments like this have always re!uired#
obviously# the consensus of the community of mathematicians. It is apparent that in their case the function of
transmission is essential. It is re$rettable that instead of conceivin$ of itself accordin$ to the model of the community
of scientists# the community of psychoanalysts conceive of itself as an ecclesiastical community. This has been to a
$reat e%tent responsible for the delay in the diffusion of the positive spirit of science in psychoanalysis# such as "acan
has developed it after ,reud.
It is worthwhile to consider +antor.s scientific invention a$ain. :ou may know the way in which +antor
demonstrates the e%istence of the uncountable infinite. Be starts off by buildin$ a chart which# by hypothesis# would
comprise all numbers between = and ?. Then# followin$ what is known as +antor.s dia$onal method# he chan$es the
symbol which appears in the place correspondin$ to each number of the dia$onal in his chart. Be reverses each of the
symbols of the dia$onal chain. Be thus demonstrates that# each of the lines bein$ infinite# the dia$onal number cannot
appear in the list# and that# in the mathematical sense# there e%ists an infinite as uncountable# as not bein$ in the list
of numbers. This is the paradi$m of the mathematical real: the real constructed on the basis of a purely si$nifyin$
e%perience. It is a real which emer$es from the impossible# determined by a network of si$nifiers' it arises as a form
of impasse in formali&ation' it is a sort of residue of the si$nifyin$ operation. I hope that throu$h this e%ample# which
obviously assumes some knowled$e of mathematics# you $rasp the sense of "acan.s apparently parado%ical
proposition: 7The real is the impossible.8
6hen I say that this e%ample re!uires some knowled$e of mathematics# I mean that in fact it can be e%plained on
the blackboard in half an hour# even to people who know nothin$ of mathematics. I have not talked about this e%ample
to make you think that it is somethin$ very comple%: it is# indeed the -4+ of the si$nifier.
GII. 9escartes developed what one could call the sub0ect of science. 6e know that the emer$ence of the +artesian
sub0ect# the sub0ect who says 7I think# I am#8 constitutes a cut in the history of ideas. This cut has been identified as
such# at any rate# in the history of philosophy. It is an error to think that the +artesian co$itoestablishes the identity
I=I. The +artesian co$ito is somethin$ different to the e$o as function of synthesis which psycholo$ists test It is an
abuse to e%tend the specific identity of the +artesian co$itoto the whole psychical sphere 5 psychical acts# movements
and representations. The +artesian co$ito is# at the time of its emer$ence# correlative of a very distinct moment.
"acan# followin$ the +artesian te%t very closely# and in a way which is not contradictory with the most ri$orous readin$
of The 1editations so far# that of the philosopher 1artial >uHroult# deciphered the first1editation in this direction. :ou
may know# even if it is only from havin$ heard its bein$ mentioned# about the function of the hyperbolic doubt in
9escartes. This function is nothin$ else than the emptyin$ of the universe of representations# of everythin$ which is
ima$inary. The co$ito in its identity only emer$es as the ineradicable residue of this operation of emptyin$. It we
follow "acan.s witticism in this connection# the evidence is of an emptied sub0ect (su0et HvidH) who does not e%ist at all
as a sphere which would contain lots of representations# !ualities and a diversity of properties# but as a simple#
vanishin$ 0lot. 9escartes says: 7I am# I think8 5 but for how2lon$? I am only durin$ the instant when I think.
This is a sub0ect who at the moment of his emer$ence is not a substance at all' on the contrary# he is an entirely
desubstantialised sub0ect# who is not a soul in any way# who is not in relation with any nature' a sub0ect for whom all
natural adherences have been undone. This sub0ect who has broken with all those adherences and with all si$nification
apart from that punctual and vanishin$ residue where thou$ht and bein$ become one# is structurally the a$ent of the
discourse of science. This is the sub0ect who then makes the si$nifier work in its relation with the other si$nifiers. It is
on the basis of this sub0ect that one can simply trust the small letters of al$ebra. These# small letters are not words'
they are not captured by metaphor and metonymy' they are separate from si$nification. This is also the sub0ect who is
correlative to +artesian e%tension# that e%tension which is so sin$ular that is entirely e%ternal to itself (as 1erleau2
*onty used to say# 7without shadow and without hidin$ place8)# that e%tension which is entirely manipulable and which
is effectively the foundation of the discourse of science. I must point out that 9escartes does not remain in this point
of the sub0ect# because he immediately discovers that the sub0ect is correlative of the divine bi$ /ther# supposed
sub0ect of knowin$ who $uarantees the automatic manipulation of those small letters.
GIII. "acan postulates# and this may appear to be parado%ical# that the sub0ect of the ,reudian unconscious. that
sub0ect which is ostensibly very different from a co$ito# is the sub0ect of science. 9escartes. punctual and vanishin$
sub0ect. Two thin$s should be distin$uished in this respect. In the first place# this sub0ect of science which emer$es
with 9escartes is# at the same time that it emer$es# re0ected by the discourse of science. Be is simultaneously one of
its conditions' but it is a foreclosed condition# re0ected to the e%terior# which means that science presents itself as a
discourse without sub0ect# as an impersonal discourse# as the discourse of the supposed sub0ect of knowin$ in person.
The academics# and I am one of them# always introduce themselves as the representatives of the supposed sub0ect
of knowin$. This is particularly evident in the universities# in +aracas or in 4russels: the academics pretend to
articulate statements (HnoncHs) as if these were without enunciation (Hnonciation). 6e know that when one says 7I8
too fre!uently# and when one puts oneself on the scale# there appears to be a trans$ression a$ainst the discourse of
science and its impersonality. In the case of psychoanalysis# the teachin$ does not take place in the same way as in
the other disciplines. In fact# it is in the discourse of science that one can truly find the sub0ect of +homsky# about
whom I spoke in my previous lecture: the ideal speaker2 hearer who knows perfectly well the detours of his lan$ua$e
and who transmits (that is the hope) without e!uivocations. +homsky.s formulation is the ideal of scientific lan$ua$e#
not the lan$ua$e that we speak and the lan$ua$e that speaks to us. Indeed# in the history of science itself one can
perceive what could be called returns of the sub0ect. This is observable precisely when one believes in the possibility of
identifyin$ oneself with the supposed sub0ect of knowin$. 6e may think of ,re$e. who believed that he could
malhemati&e classical lo$ic completely# throu$h the achievement of a perfect# une!uivocal and total written lan$ua$e.
6hat happened to ,re$e is one of the $reat dramas of the history of science. -t the time when the second volume of
his work was about to be published# he received a letter from 4ertrand <ussell in which <ussell told him that there was
a small parado% in his first volume which spoilt the whole work. It is a very short parado% of only one para$raph# it fits
within a sheet of paper# and *re$e spent the last twenty years of his life ruminatin$ over that si$nificant fact. There are
those lapses within the discourse of science which put all certainties in !uestion. There is still another e%ample taken
from the history of mathematical lo$ic which is# par e%cellence# where the perfect certainty of the discourse of science
should be established. I am referrin$ to the famous proof of >Ldel. 6hen >Ldel postulated his theorem# the $uarantee
provided by the /ther for the manipulation of the small letters# which had commenced with 9escartes# appeared to
suddenly collapse. I !uote these e%amples simply to evoke the discourse of science in so far as this re0ects the
sub0ect' and in turn# the sub0ect also fractures the consistency of that discourse.
In the second place# the sub0ect of the unconscious# in "acan.s sense# is nothin$ else but sub0ect of the si$nifier#
that is to say# the sub0ect of science# but re$ained in a scientific field as the sub0ect who speaks. Be is a sub0ect who
serves in an inte$ral form as the vehicle of the si$nifier. *sychoanalysis is different from all forms of initiation and
contemplative asceticism known in -nti!uity. It is also different from all the va$ue bodily manipulations which are
a$ain fashionable today 5 those e%ercises throu$h which an attempt is made to help the sub0ect to $et rid of his pain#
to encoura$e him. to influence him by su$$estion and to stimulate him. The psychoanalytic e%ercise is different from
all initiation precisely because# if psychoanalysis is to work# the sub0ect is not to have any form of mental preparation#
contemplation or asceticism. /n the contrary# the sub0ect of psychoanalysis must arrive without preparation and must
offer himself for the e%ercise without any previous purification. Be must attend his sessions re$ularly# in a manner that
can be called bureaucratic# and tell everythin$ that $oes throu$h his head. Be must not prepare fine speeches. It is
not a !uestion of purification throu$h lan$ua$e# but on the contrary of releasin$ the material in disorder. -nd which is
the operation peculiar to the psychoanalyst? To $uarantee that all this material released in disorder has a cause. In
this respect the fundamental postulate of psychoanalysis is determinist. Dverythin$ has a cause. This is one of the two
formulations of the principle of sufficient reason# which emer$ed only with "eibni&. /nce a$ain# this is a principle linked
to the discourse of science and which# incidentally# Beide$$er commented in his work The Dssence of <easons. This is
why in the psychoanalytic operation the psychoanalyst plays the part of the supposed sub0ect of knowin$. The analyst
occupies this place in order to render the analytic operation possible. It is a very dan$erous place# because this can
easily lead the psychoanalyst to identify himself with the $ood >od. This is# in fact# what we can verify in the history of
psychoanalysis. The analysts have $ladly identified with the divinity. They even e%perience a very special infatuation:
$iven that as a conse!uence of their function they are supposed to know# they do not feel obli$ed to know anythin$. I
mean that they can well be swimmin$ in i$norance# but this does not prevent that# as their position is that of the
/ther in the e%perience# they consider themselves to be perfect. ;ometimes they re$ard themselves as the model for
their patients# as their ideal' sometimes they confuse the psychoanalytic treatment with a form of education which
would simply aim at leadin$ the sub0ect to identifyin$ with the psychoanalyst. They believe themselves to be the
soverei$n $ood. "acan has made remarks like these# and naturally he did not make many friends amon$ the
psychoanalysts throu$h them. If he is occasionally critical of the practitioners of other disciplines# certainly he is less
critical of them than of his collea$ues.
"acan has also stated that the analytic e%perience does not consist in the identification of the patient with the
psychoanalyst# but on the contrary in the evacuation of the supposed sub0ect of knowin$. There is only one practice
that could truly be called atheist# and that is psychoanalysis. This is why priests are so interested in psychoanalysis.
/ne can also observe the opposite trend. /ne can see psychoanalysts# even of "acan.s school# like ,ranMoise 9olto#
tellin$ the masses that the first psychotherapist was esus +hrist# which pleases neither the psychoanalysts nor the
+hurch. This is what after thirty years of "acan.s discourse one can a$ain hear in *aris. 6e must be sceptical about the
effects that can be achieved throu$h theN production of theory.
It is already time to finish. I still have to discuss two points# which I shall only do briefly.
IO. This point was ori$inally aimed at showin$ how "acan has# in the analytic e%perience itself# structured those
parado%es of communication which I presented in my second lecture and which prompted *rofessor +adenas to say
that they rendered knowled$e impossible. I would have liked to demonstrate how "acan# in a domain which is
undoubtedly very difficult# attempts to structure those parado%es. It is true that $enerali&ed e!uivocation is a motive
to lose one.s mind' and yet this $enerali&ed e!uivocation has a structure.
O. I would have like to ac!uaint you with that formula of "acan.s which I presented rather abruptly: 7The woman
does not e%ist.8 It is a very $ood e%ample precisely because "acan attempts to write this parado% in a lo$ical form' by
this I mean he borrows the tools of mathematical lo$ic. /ne should not believe that lo$ic is simply what is tau$ht at
the first classes of the Pniversity about the principle of contradiction# and that where the principle of contradiction is
not valid# there is no lo$ic. This is an error. /n the contrary. There e%ists somethin$ like <ussell.s parado% which
re!uires elaboration. There are inconsistent mathematical lo$ics# founded on the ne$ation of the principle of
contradiction. It is possible to make a mathematical lo$ic work while ne$atin$ the principle of contradiction. If there
are lo$icians present here# I think they will not dis!ualify what I am sayin$# $iven the e%istence of inconsistent
mathematical lo$ics. "acan.s lo$ic of the si$nifier. that lo$ic which suits the unconscious and which does not know of
contradiction# as ,reudQsaid# is an inconsistent lo$ic. The whole al$ebra of "acanian terms .is or$ani&ed around
inconsistency.
I hope that lo$icians from Gene&uela# if they are present here# will not contradict me# since the development of
inconsistent mathematical lo$ics has taken place particularly in "atin -merica. The 4ra&ilian# -r$entinian and +hilean
schools of mathematical lo$ic# whose recent symposium has been published two years a$o by the Corth Bolland
+ollection of works on lo$ic# have shown all the resources that from the mathematical point of view can be found in
the inconsistent lo$ics. This demonstrates that there are more thin$s in science than one ima$ines.
"acan developed an inconsistent lo$ic .of the phallus. Be thou$ht# very faithful in this respect to his teacher. "ittle
Bans# that the phallus could be considered as a predicate. "acan was able to arran$e the ,reudian parado%es of
castration of the basis of an inconsistent lo$ic of the predicate phallus