***
LACANBERRA
Project
***
Bulletin for psychoanalysis and social sciences
Volume II Issue 2
Spring-Summer 2012
Lacanberra Project is a professional group in Canberra (ACT), dedicated to the study of Lacanian psychoanalysis and social sciences. Lacanberra Project is connected to the Lacan Circle
Consultant: Dr Russell Grieg, Associate Professor, Deakin University Melbourne/Geelong, Faculty of Arts and Education, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, President of the Lacan Circle Melbourne
Practice of Lacanian psychoanalysis: Dr David Westcombe, Curtin Consulting Rms, Canberra
Theory of Lacanian psychoanalysis and social fields: Dr Milan Balazic, Associate Professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty for Social Sciences, Ambassador of the Republic of Slovenia in Australia and New Zealand
ARTICLE
THE DISCOURSE OF THE CAPITALISM
The discourse of the university appears as the base: students in events at the end of the sixties paved its way with their revolution – knowing that the discourse of the master does not exist – and thus carried out a historic dismantling of this discourse. In the order of politics where the main value is loyalty, this was enforced by the 'marching of knowledge', derived to the marching of value: surplus-jouissance equals surplus-value. This is the formula which establishes the infamous, controversial and auxiliary 'fifth' discourse – the capitalist's discourse. This discourse, introduced by Lacan in his lecture at the Milan University on 12 May 1972, does not have the same status as the four-pronged structure of the four discourses (the discourse of the master, the discourse of the university, the discourse of the hysteric and the discourse of the analyst); instead, it is a substitute – a substitute for the discourse of the master where a turn has occurred: a substitution only in the positions of factor and truth.
The status of the substitute-ness of the discourse of the capitalist is based on the range of the turn: as opposed to the usual transitions from one discourse into another in the matrix of the four discourses where it is always a matter of a quarter turn, here the turn is only half quarter. If knowledge (S2) and surplus-jouissance (a) remain in their places of Other and production, the signifier- master (S1) and the split subject ($) swap their places. In the discourse of the master, the elements S1 and $ hold the positions of factor and truth, whereas in the discourse of the capitalist, S1 is in the position of truth and $ in the position of the discourse factor which is – and here is the crucial difference from the four-pronged discourse structure in which we are always dealing with the relationship between the factor and the Other – in a non-relationship with S2 while knowledge is in the position of the Other:
$ S2
---- ----
S1 a
We are looking at the discourse of capitalism, a special regime which continuously maintains itself through the Other which takes opposition as an inherent feature while it operates faster and faster, i.e., there are ever more produced objects. The key point, however, is in that it transforms the proletarian-servant into a free consumer. He thus gets the illusion that he holds the position of the master. Actually, the ever increasing production and consumption affect the subject himself in the form of self-consumption and self-injury. The fall of the discourse of the master is thus accompanied by the rise of a new discourse – the discourse of the capitalist which joins the discourse of the university in the position of the Other, whereby knowledge (S2) is positioned as the factor. At the same time, this is the triumph of the discourse of science with the structure of the discourse of the hysteric. The discourse of the analyst on the other side of the discourse of the master is the only one that stands in the way of total victory of knowledge[1].
Students' knowledge and Marxist knowledge on how-to-make-a-revolution placed everything in its place again in the sense of a full turn - to the place of the discourse of the capitalist which has its roots in the object of Marx's Capital: the operation of the market and the labour market and the fact that labour is bought. The existence of surplus labour lends itself to the introduction of the concept of surplus value. From here, Lacan draws a line to the revolution but here it is not certain that the power takeover will realise the expected subversion of the capitalist subject. According to Lacan, surplus value highlights the function of surplus- jouissance (plus de jouir) articulated by the discourse of the capitalist. It includes means of enjoyment which implies the subject. There would be no reason for the subject (in the sense of raison d'etat) if it was not for the correlation on the market of the Other, surplus-jouissance caught by some.
In the field of the discourse we get the enjoyment market and around surplus- jouissance the production of basic labour – object a - takes place. In the economic reality, Marx's decoding shows that the subject of the exchange value is represented for applied value: this split alone is sufficient for the production of surplus value. In this, some loss is incurred: the subject is no longer identical with himself. He therefore no longer experiences enjoyment: what is lost here is the surplus-jouissance. Where surplus-jouissance is uncovered to its naked form, it has a special name – it is called perversion. Surplus value comprises unpaid labour even if it is formally correctly paid in accordance with market consistency. In the operation of the capitalist subject - and worker's frustration – this unpaid labour presents the surplus value which is the result of means of articulation, that is, the constitution of the discourse of the capitalist from the capitalist logics.
The key feature is related to surplus value and abstract work: with the absolutization of the market, surplus-jouissance was introduced and it fulfilled the condition that allowed it to appear in the discourse, including in the discourse of the capitalist in parallel with the discourse of science. The capitalist reality does not include a bad relation with science as the market and science accommodate each other. Furthermore, it is necessary that the knowledge market exists as part of the broader market and that knowledge is traded on this market. According to Lacan, knowledge does not become a market due to the effects of perversion and imbecility of human beings - Sorbonne in Jansenists have always been on the right, that is, the wrong side: "I observe the roots of what is absurdly called 'events' (Paris events of May 1968 – Author's Note); in this respect, there has never been any 'event' "[2]. The process itself that unifies science forms a knot with the discourse of the capitalist which reduces all knowledge to the single market. On this market, for knowledge the right price is always supposed to be paid in accordance with the rules established by the science market. The capitalist obtains it for nothing, and this can be called surplus-jouissance.
The homogenisation of knowledge on the market indicates that enjoyment is organised and takes form as research (recherchée), as perversion. In this case, the discomfort of the culture creates surplus-jouissance that arises form the renouncement of enjoyment by paying respect to the principle of knowledge value: "Is knowledge goods? This is a question posed here because its correlate is the following: non licet omnibus – as I said before – adire Corynthum. Not everyone has access to surplus-jouissance"[3]. The function of surplus-jouissance (Mehrlust) includes a hidden trick: the subject in its relation to enjoyment suffers which is shown by the symptom as the average and abstract social truth. It results from the fact that knowledge is undoubtedly always paid in accordance with its true value but under the knowledge applied value. Strike manifests collective truth of labour and "what we saw in May was the strike of truth. Its relation to the truth was obvious. The truth was displayed on walls. Of course, in that moment we should have remembered the relationship which I happily highlighted three months earlier, before the truth of stupidity (vérité de la connerie) did not forget to ask the question on the stupidity of truth"[4].
The relation between knowledge and jouissance is described by the structural function of surplus-jouissance which is, according to Lacan, homologous to Marx's surplus-value. This suitability in its origin and development and compatibility in its structure does not, however, mean that homology is analogy. The thing is the same, a symptom which results from a certain historic appearance with an effect that implies a change in the knowledge relationship with enjoyment. Psychoanalysis as the symptom appears at this historic pivotal moment for knowledge by intervening in the operation of something that Lacan calls object a[5]. The capitalist exploitation of desire (l'exploitation du désir): this is the great invention of the discourse of the capitalist which works and continues to work.
Regardless of everything, this industrialisation of desire is accepted surprisingly peacefully: surplus-value (Mehrwert) is pouring out of the subject while we are dealing with pleasure which Lacan calls Marx-pleasure (Marxlust); namely, a collaboration of labourers with the capitalist regime. The working class is not Marxist or Communist, rather, it is affected by the principle of pleasure which strengthens capital. In this strengthening of the community of goods (communauté des biens) included in the discourse of the new master, the working class with its discipline plays an important role. Marx-Lust runs parallel with what Freud discovered in the unconscious (l'Unbewust): Marx-pleasure = Freud-pleasure (Freud-Lust), the result of which is represented in the discomfort in the culture, the Freud-discomfort (Freud-Unbehagen). Hence, Marx-pleasure facilitates the production of surplus-value and its spreading in the form of surplus-jouissance. In this respect, Plato mentioned the pair of enjoyment and surplus-jouissance whereby jouissance is always reduced to plus-de-jouir[6].
The discourse of the capitalist establishes and recurrently regenerates surplus-value; however, at the same time Mehrwert generates Marx-pleasure (Marxlust), Marx's surplus-jouissance. This is the reason for a surprising fact that the capitalist production is almost a pacific ocean (océan peu pacifique). The surplus value is the reason for desire and as such it is elevated into an economic principle: production and consumption in the capitalist sense is a result of widened (re)production driven by the lack of enjoyment (manque-à-jouir). For Lacan, Marx correctly noted that capital is firstly the capitalist whose structural lacking ensures the capitalist production as a permanent revolution. The unbelievable self-regenerating power of capitalism lives off the Other as it continuously and efficaciously absorbs it. In Lacan's time, this Other was represented also and mainly by Communists: by rejecting capitalism and desiring something "totally Other" – this time meant in the Adorno-Horkheimer's sense of "das ganz Andere" – they tried to oppose the bourgeois order by creating an anti-society (contre-société) which would revere labour, family and the (proletarian) homeland.
The Communist revolution in its discourse paradoxically produced a symptom of normalisation – it knew how to establish law. By doing this, it created the possibility of the impossibility to govern: the post-revolutionary fantasy of masterdom over knowledge as masterdom of knowledge on the flow of History was replaced by the pre-revolutionary hysterical position of helplessness of knowledge which maintained the discourse of the hysteric and animated desire. Even though the production of surplus value was hidden in the discourse, the regime of the servant in power got caught in the trap of exploitation of knowledge. The principle of this exploitation is Lenin's faith: the Marxist theory will win because it is true. In the 'proletarian' discourse of the university, knowledge (S2) is in the position of factor; however, it is dominated by the signifier-master (S1) in the position of truth. In the discourse of the capitalist, the split subject ($) – the subject of capitalism – is in the position of factor, but in the position of truth it is hysterised by the signifier–master (S1) – the capital. Regardless of this difference, in both cases (S1 → S2, $ → S1) we are dealing with exploitation of knowledge, firstly by masterdom of truth - the Communist party's dominance over knowledge, then by forcing the subject to sell his knowledge as value to the truth-capital. The door was thus opened to capitalist universalisation[7].
In Seminar XVI which can be, among other things, read as a seminar on Marx, Lacan asks himself whether he contributed anything new with this psychoanalytic intervention – except for the concept of surplus-jouissance (Mehrlust) as an analogy to surplus-value (Mehrwert) where he underlines out that they represent two radical points developed in two completely different fields. By recalling Lenin's syntagm, it can still be seen what the Marxist theory is about, at least as far as truth and its effects are concerned – about the fact that the truth of capitalism is the working class, proletariate. The before mentioned theory thinks of 'proletariat' through the effect of this truth which leads to revolutionary consequences. When it says 'proletariat', it is meant that labour has been radicalised to the simple level of trade which brings the worker to the same level. When the worker, due to the theory, becomes aware of his position, he makes a step to his new status – we now have somebody who knows, a 'savant'. He is no longer a proletarian 'per se' (an sich), a very simple truth; but rather for himself (für sich), which means that he now has class awareness.
This represents the entrance for the Communist party where – in accordance with previously described Leninist definition of relation to truth – people no longer tell the truth. The Leninist principle cripples the system with a special type of simplification, by faith in progress, by progressivism (progressisme). Service to the field of truth inevitably leads to lies by diligent workers of the communist church. A parallel with Pascal springs to mind: in both discourses – of the proletariat and of God – there is a hole, a place where the signifier cannot be positioned, even though it is required to hold everything else together. Both discourses claim that the signifier (proletariat, God) can glue things together. This works only on one special level which is closest to the mentally short-changed – philosophy. In philosophy, it is generally accepted even among atheists that the Higher Being has a meaning[8].
The play that unfolds here was previously addressed by Pascal with each of the two zeros as the key figures: for Lacan, they index a stake on one side and a non-stake on the other. Everything is held together only if the stake is considered worthless: object a has neither applicative nor exchange value. What was under the question in the stake and its operation alone allows psychoanalysis to make a step in the structure of desire: object a animates everything in the human being's relation with the world. On this object a, which is at the centre here, Hegel, whose philosophical system might be erroneous, says: "Namely, there is no other game than to risk everything for everything; that this is even what we simply call an act. It is named by the fight to death for pure prestige. This is exactly what psychoanalysis is allowed to clarify"[9].
In the discourse of the capitalist, does this hold any applicable value? Lacan's point is not aimed at ticking off capitalism as useless – capitalism is useful for the production of useless things. This hides its key problem: its almighty powerful and blind operation is aimed against its own power, against its own (capital) authority. This authority is thus faced by considerable issues that are even shared by the revolutionary risk of fighting for everything ("we are nothing, let us be all" – the Internationale): "Capitalism completely changed the habits of authorities. They have perhaps become more exaggerated; in any case, they changed. Capitalism introduced something that was never seen before, something called 'liberal government'"[10].
Political science teaches about the nature of this authority: prior to the emergence of liberal government it was unthinkable that in any government institution anybody could relinquish power by resignation. When there is a genuine serious government, there is no resignation as this could have very serious consequences, such as a shot in the head on the way out. The idea of resignation is understood as a liberal progression in relation to serious authorities: a politician can make a total mess of everything and prove himself totally incompetent within a few months – but then he peacefully resigns and nothing will happen to him. Moreover, he is told that he will have to wait for his next opportunity when he can return to power: "Something like this was never seen in Rome
This masked, hidden and archaic power of capital which is split within in such a way that it also acts against itself was veiled in the rise of science. It is impossible to overlook the issue with knowledge which according to romantic perceptions belongs with power as much as fish with bicycle. This leads to a conclusion that in the field of science something must have taken place that transcends its abilities to rule. The 'May Agitation' which called for a reform of the relationship between knowledge and government had, according to Lacan, the opposite effect: the effect of changes made everything worse and accelerated the rise of knowledge-power, that is, the discourse of the university. Knowledge is now the one that puts the world back to order, a universal and unitary order, through its operations.
The power of capital with its peculiar innovation for the need of war every 20 years could wrap itself in the coat of illusion of progress. The question of the ruling class was solved whereas people continue their fight with ideologies as ideologies. The event went in the opposite direction, to benefit the ruling, or rather, the enjoying class who always kept on hand philosophers who were used to legalise the system of exploitation of the worker where enjoyment is not excluded from labour. Marx was able to see that when he articulated the only position which still applies – a close compliance of the concept of revolution with the system that carries it, i.e., with the capitalist system[12].
Among the above mentioned philosophers, Lacan can recognise specialists in truth who occupied the space that was abandoned by philosophy. These specialists each in his own way contribute to philosophy, the discourse of the master which received its pivotal stabilisation by the support from science. In contrast to the semi-utterance of truth, it is uttered here through the dividing line between enjoyment and semblant: the truth takes enjoyment in being a semblant. Marx's philosophy of scientific socialism is lame in the same leg: it is certain for him that philosophy is in any event insufficiently phallic (pas assez phalle)[13]. The effect of Marx's discourse is quite opposite; however, its phallic quality is also its upper limit: as it includes rebellion it consolidates and supplements the discourse of the master.
Marx's historic highlight positions and crystallises this discourse. It survived by becoming profitable for everyone at some point – in the moment when it almost invisibly slides into the discourse of the capitalist. We would have no idea about the latter if it was not for Marx who supplemented it by giving it its subject – the proletariat. Thanks to this addition, the discourse of the capitalist has spread everywhere, even in places ruled by Marxist governments[14]: " the discourse of the capitalism distinguishes itself by the following: Verwerfung, rejection. Rejection outside all symbolic fields which results in, as I already said, in this consequence: rejection of what? Castration."[15]. Every order and every discourse related to capitalism leaves on its margins what Lacan simply calls 'love issues'.
Epicurean wisdom promoted the principle of minimal enjoyment for the very thing that can destroy the man is jouissance. Nevertheless, all other subjects of the Greek and Roman civilization were very much interested in enjoyment. They worked on it and were in fact slaves to enjoyment – that is why slaves existed. The only civilisation that was beaten by enjoyment had to have slaves: those who sought enjoyment were slaves, hence, no slaves no enjoyment. Today, there are no slaves; there are employees. Every person does whatever it takes to become an employee. This is something entirely different from slaves: only slaves seek enjoyment. This is their function and that isolates them. People can see no barrier to transform somebody from a free person to a slave. When they become slaves they are allowed to exclusively seek enjoyment which is something free people can only dream about. And as the latter tend to be altruistic they have created slaves throughout history. Lacan adds to this that there were indeed more civilised places, China
Enjoyment is what creates a total barrier to sexual relationship to be recorded in any way, and the result of interpretation cannot be calculated. Let us have a look, at, say Napoleon's army on one side which fights the Russian army: both packs stand against each other like two marching discourses. What holds each individual in the pack is his conviction that he is the warrior S1. It is quite clear that the victory of one army over the other is totally unpredictable as the warrior's enjoyment cannot be calculated. If there is somebody in the field who takes enjoyment in being killed, that gives him a great edge over the opponent. We are dealing with a contingent which even capitalism, capable of calculating almost everything, is unable to in-calculate[16].
The other side of incalculable enjoyment of the discourse of the capitalist is its calculable poverty. Once we enter this discourse, we inevitably take this poverty upon us, whether we participate or protest. By rebellion we strengthen it, by academic criticism we perfect it: "One thing is certain: taking poverty on one's own shoulders, so to speak, means entering the discourse which conditions this poverty, even if the intention is to protest. The mere fact that I say this puts me in a position that some will define as a rejection of politics. This however, as far as I am concerned, is not applicable to anybody. Nevertheless, the business of these psycho-so-and-sos who occupy themselves with carrying your alleged load is not to protest but to participate. Knowingly or unknowingly, they indeed do so… if I link this poverty to the discourse of the capitalist, I denounce it (dénonce). Let me just warn you that this cannot be done seriously, for by denouncing it I strengthen it – by standardising it, I perfect it"[17].
The Marxist discourse did exactly that – it took the issue seriously, denounced capitalism and strengthened it in an unexpected manner. The Marx's ideal worker as the blossom of the capitalist economy took it over from the discourse of the master: if the discourse of the master in the first case slid into the discourse of the capitalist, there was only a quarter turn to the university discourse of the Stalinist Party. They both represent two sides (embarrassments) of the same enjoyment. Lacan's exit does not side with the seriousness of capitalist and communist revolutionaries but rather with the bizarre position of the saint who in the place where the Other takes enjoyment always remains empty handed. The saint is not only the throw-back of enjoyment; it is indifferent to the enjoyment of the Other. He doesn't care for it even when it concerns the serious concept of distributive fairness[18].
When we are embarrassed about this (conservative) or another (revolutionary) support of the Master we may be redeemed by saint's laughter: "The more we become saints the more we feel like laughing, this is my principle, even the way out of the capitalist discourse – but that will represent no progression if it happens only for some"[19]; that is, until such time when the discourse of the analyst becomes a social tie. It is indeed necessary to live in our current time when nobody laughs, not even philosophy lecturers. Everything is possible, everything is accepted seriously; this means that we actually live in a regime of intellectual segregation[20].
Lacan foretold the emergence of segregation problems and related racism included in the control over everything that is taking place on the level of reproduction of beings that talk and have all kinds of consciousness problems. He seems to be amazed by the fact that people failed to notice that these consciousness problems are in fact problems of enjoyment and knowledge that arises from the order of jouissance[21]. This highlights the error of Freud's patricide myth, followed by brotherhood, in all its dimensions. Extraordinary cultural and political energies invested in fraternity seem to confirm that apparently 'we are not brothers'. Relentless efforts to impose fraternity – in addition to freedom and equality – have no scientific basis whatsoever. This fraternity cannot be envisaged in any other way but as isolated people together and isolated from others.
When they discover they are brothers, this happens in the name of some kind of segregation: "I know only one source of fraternity – I am talking about a human (humaine) one; hence, still about humus (humus)-, namely, segregation. Of course we live in an era when segregation is – phew! If we read newspapers, there is no sign of segregation, it is something unheard of. Nevertheless, in society – I do not want to call it human as I save my words and take care of what I say which is the reason why I realise I am not a leftist – everything that exists, is simply based on segregation, first of all on fraternity." On the level of the discourse of the university object a comes to the position of more or less bearable exploitation. What is unbearable is the fact that the parallel segregation is the effect of speech per se: "We are never entirely finished with segregation. I can tell you it will just keep appearing in ever more unusual forms. Nothing can function without that – what happens here as object a, but in some live form, no matter how aborted, it shows that segregation is the effect of language"[22].
This effect of speech has its real dimension in concentration camps which indicate the return of evil-bearing past. Social reforms generated by scientific universalisation bring about their complement in particularisation, that is, segregation: "Let us say, in short, that what we saw coming about from this represents, to our horror, the reaction of messengers to what will develop as a consequence of reforming social groups by science, that is, by implementing universalisation."[23]. Where does Lacan's confidence in foretelling the rise of segregation and racism come from? Again, we are talking about the question of enjoyment and its management: "When our enjoyment starts to wander in the dark, its position can only be marked as the Other, under the condition that we are separated from it.
From here, certain fantasies arise which remain hidden (inédits) as long as we do not get involved with them. We can allow the Other its own ways of taking enjoyment unless we enforce our own on him, that is, unless we consider him less developed. If we add to this the uncertainly of our world which has positioned itself only in relation to surplus-jouissance and is actually expressed only in this way – what can we then expect from the continuation of this ordered humanitarianism that our abuse of power (nos exactions) is dressed in?"[24]. Transgressionists for whom the signifier for the fraternity society as a rule appears as the ideal, of course do not comprehend fully what they call 'Lacan's withdrawal': segregation cannot be the consequence of Oedipus and fraternity; instead we are dealing with segregation application as a prerequisite of Oedipus[25].
Science has its position in the rise of segregation and racism even if its principled universalism is anti-segregationist, antiracist, antinational and anti-ideological. The reason for this is its discourse which uses a consolidated and universalised mode of the subject. Science has a call to be universal as its signifier is de-subjectified for individuality: it is true only under the condition of the universal quantifier 'for all x'. The diffusing effects of the science discourse have led to a global spreading of market and exchange, but also to the deterioration of solidarity in communities and family. The discourse with its signifiers impacts on the individual and all social groups by introducing universalisation in their midst. The dialectic progression of renewed segregations which have become stricter than ever before actually suits desegregation as a principle. The scientific universalism is limited by something strictly specific – the means of enjoyment. To the fact that every subject is a slave to the imperative of jouissance science has no answer.
The answer, however, have inert discourses of tradition which facilitated the framework of the means of enjoyment for social groups and prescribed what the sexual relationship should be. There is a requirement in the science discourse for all to be brothers and to recognise in the Other the subject of science: "The trouble is in that we cannot recognise ourselves in the Other as subjects of science but rather, if I may say so, as subjects of jouissance. When the Other comes too close, it gets mixed up with you, as Lacan says, give rise to new fantasies which especially affect the surplus-jouissance in the Other"[26] and the withdrawal of your share of pleasure: - φ . That is where the hatred for the enjoyment in the Other, to the specific means by which the Other takes enjoyment – to the Other within us, to one's own enjoyment comes from. Localisation and application of jouissance in the order of the discourse creates differences; hence, there are races which are not physical: the race is always established by the way in which symbolic positions are maintained in the discourse.
***
[1] Lacan, J.,Du discours psychanalytique, l'Université de Milan Milan
[2] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 40
[3] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 40
[4] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 41
[5] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 45
[6] Lacan, J., Excursus, intervention dans une réunion organisée par la Scuola freudiana, à Milan, 4 février 1973, Lacan in Italia 1953-1978. En Italie Lacan, Milan: la Salamandra, 1978, p. 97, http://www.ecole-lacanienne.net/documents/1973-02-04.doc; Lacan, J., Alla Scuola Freudiana, conférence, 30 mars 1974, Lacan in Italia 1953-1978. En Italie Lacan, Milan
[7] Lacan, J., Radiophonie, in Autres écrits, Paris: Seuil, 2001, p. 434-435, 438-440, 443-445; Lacan, J., Interventions sur l'exposé de P. Mathis: »Remarques sur la fonction de l'argent dans la technique analytique«, Congrès de l'École freudienne de Paris sur »La technique psychanalytique«, Aix-en-Provence, Lettres de l'École freudienne 1972, no. 9, pp. 202-203, http://www.ecole-lacanienne.net/documents/1971-05-21.doc
[8] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 176
[9] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 178
[10] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 239
[11] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 239-240
[12] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 333
[13] Lacan, J., Le séminaire, Livre XVIII: D'un discours qui ne serait pas du semblant (1970-1971), Paris
[15] Lacan, J., Le séminaire XIXb: Le savoir du psychanalyste (1971-1972), 6. 1. 1972, unpublished typescript
[16] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire XXI: Les non-dupes errent (1973-1974), 20. 11. 1973, unpublished typescript
[17] Lacan, J., Televizija, op. cit., p. 57; Lacan, J., Télévision, in Autres écrits, op. cit., p. 517-518
[18] Miller, J.-A., Vie de Lacan, op. cit., p. 3
[19] Lacan, J., Televizija, op. cit., p. 60; Lacan, J., Télévision, in Autres écrits, op. cit., p. 520
[20] Lacan, J.,Le séminaire, Livre XVI: D'un Autre à l'Autre (1968-1969), op. cit., p. 163
[21] Lacan, J., Le séminaire XIXb: Le savoir du psychanalyste (1971-1972), 4. 11. 1971, unpublished typescript
[22] Lacan, J., Seminar XVII: Hrbtna stran psihoanalize (1969-1970), op. cit., p. 130, 208; Lacan, J., Le séminaire, Livre XVII: L'envers de la psychanalyse (1969-1970), Paris
[23] Lacan, J., Propozicija z dne 9. oktobra 1967 o psihoanalitiku Šole, op. cit., p. 20; Lacan, J., Proposition du 9 octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste de l'École, op. cit., 2001, p. 257
[24] Lacan, J., Televizija, op. cit., p. 76; Lacan, J., Télévision, in Autres écrits, op. cit., p. 534
[25] Deleuze, G., Guattari, F., Anti-Oedipus, London: Continuum, 2009, p. 92, 114; Deleuze and Guattari considered themselves loyal fans of Lacan's work and responded to his statement that "they do not help much" by saying: "We thought of offering him some schizophrenic assistance". The relationship between Lacan and Deleuze and Guattari's transgressism can be seen in the light of their anti-Oedipus which functions as a monstrous offspring of Lacanian psychoanalysis, in accordance with Deleuze's understanding of his philosophical project: as a creative sodomy which bears to great thinkers crippled children who are nevertheless still theirs. According to J.-A. Miller, Lacan in his own specific way recognised this heir: anti-Oedipus is a variation of Lacan's special theme, hic criticism of naive Oedipism enriched, not without humour, by an ode to schizophrenia. It is an heir who Lacan recognised (as his own) but labelled him as delirant" (conversation with F. Ewald, Paris, Magazine Littéraire no. 271, novembre 1989, p. 24).
[26] Miller, J.-A., O nekem drugem Lacanu, Ekstimnost, op. cit., p. 231; Miller, J.-A., Extimité, Cours 1985-1986, 27. 11. 1985