The LINGUISTIC Other in Lacan

From notebook

---

Latest revision as of 02:46, 28 January 2011

Ecrits But this experience, constituted between two subjects one of whom plays in the dialogue a role of ideal impersonality..9

「他者」は聞き手である I shall show that there is no speech without a reply, even is it is met only with silence, provided that is has an auditor: this is at the heart of its function in psychoanalysis. 40

他者に宛てて話す。 For I shall take this opportunity of stressing that the allocution of the subject entails an allocutor - in other words that the locutor is constituted in it as intersubjectivity.49 Even if he is speaking “off”, he addresses himself to that Other with a capital O. allocutor and locutor ,Edoard Pinchon.

Secondly it is on the basis of this interlocution, in so far as it includes the responses of the interlocutor, that Freud insists on as the restoration of continuity in the subject motivation becomes clear. An operational examination of this objective shows us that it can be satisfied only in the intersubjective economy of the discourse in which the subject history is constituted.49 Human language constitutes a communication in which the sender receives the message back from the receiver in an inverted form. ... in other words speech always includes its own reply.85

84-86

Jonathan Scott Lee “Jacques Lacan” 言語は自分以外の話相手を必要とする。 Subjectivity has an inherently bipolar structure speech implies a reply: there is no speaking without an auditor who replies; there is no subject without another. 38 他者は場所 the other is thus the place where is constituted the “je” which speaks with the one who listens.57 話す事はもう尋理の話してを必要としている In the place of the unified subject of western philosophy, then, we find instead “the pace of the ‘inter-said’ (inter-dit), ehich is the intra-said (intra-dit) of a between two subjects: the subject exists simply as the discontinuity between intention and meaning introduced by the fact that speech always occurs in relation to another speaker. The result of this is we cannot put ourselves entirely into language. saying everything that is forbidden(inter-dire).139

他者＝女 Given that the symbolic system is organised around the phallic signifier, it follows that the “Other I my language can only be the other sex”. the other sex here clearly being that of woman.

Seminars 1

I is a verbal term, whose use is learned through a specific reference to the other which is a spoken reference. The I is born through a specific reference to the you. 166 父親は超自我になる Let us say that (this term) it is use when something like a reversal takes place - what was the outside becomes the inside, what was the father becomes the super ego.169 話すのは信じられていなければならない。 Speech is precisely only speech in as much as someone believes in it. (Odysseusの話)229

Seminars 2 51...the essential form of the human message whereby one receives one’s own message from the other in an inverted form. (Don’t believe that )

89Here we discover what I have already pointed out to you, namely that the unconscious is the discourse of the other. This discourse of the other is not the discourse of the abstract other, of the other in the dyad, of my correspondent, nor even my slave, is the discourse of the circuit into which I am integrated. I am one of its links. It is the discourse of my father　for instance, in so far as my father made mistakes which I am condemned to reproduce - that’s what we call the super ego.

166 What did I try to get across with the mirror stage? Whatever in man is loosened up, fragmented, anarchic, establishes its relation to his perception on a plane with a completely original tension. The image of his body is the principle of every unity he perceives in objects. Now, he only perceives the unity of this specific image from the outside, and in an anticipated manner are always structured around the wandering shadow of his own ego. Seminar 3 56 There is otherness of the other that corresponds to the S, that is, the big Other, the subject who is unknown to us, The Other who is symbolic by nature. 無意識は他者の話 112The internal monologue is entirely consistent with the external dialogue, and this is why we can say that the unconscious is also the discourse of the other. 他者は話す主体が認知されるところ

170? I spoke to you about the Other of speech where the subject recognises himself and gets himself recognised.

他者はIのlocus 場所, 位置.軌跡.

The other is therefore the locus in which is constituted the I who is speaking with him who hears. 262 272Until now I have been showing you the duality of this other, between the imaginary other and the Other with a big O, this Other that I discussed in the small piece that I read out to you in the last session of last year, and which has just been published in Evolution psychiatrique under the title oh La Chose freudienne.

I apologise for quoting myself but what’s the point of polishing up one’s propositions if one is not going to use them? I say the Other, is therefore the locus in which is constituted the I who is speaking with him who hears (E  431/141). I say this following some remarks on the fact that  there is always an other beyond all concrete dialogue, all interpsychological play. The proposition that I quote has to taken as a starting point, the issue is to find out where it leads to.
I would like you to be aware of how much difference there is between such a perspective and the one that is confusedly accepted today. Saying that the Other is the locus in which is constituted the I who is speaking with him who hears is something quite different from setting out from the idea that the other is a being.
NOT I AND THOU AS IN BUBER

The other must first of all be considered a locus. the locus in which speech is constituted. 273

277 Super ego function of you. discourse is always addressed to another. 父は名によるものだ。 306 Before the name of the father there was no father.

Bice Benventuto and Roger Kenedy The works of Jacques Lacan etc. 対話者がなければならない He considers that it is the awareness of an interlocutor that language starts to have meaning for somebody, a discourse is always addressed to an interlocutor. There is a phenomenological ‘intentionality’ in what one says to another person. 精神分析家は他者の権化 72. the analyst is the embodiment of a presence to whom the speech is really addressed. This presence to whom the patient insists on speaking, in spite of the listener’s silence, provides evidence for the insistence.

他者と精神分析家 73 Although he is addressed by the patient’s words, and so is allowed to assimilate the images and passion the patient imposes on him, he realises that he is only taking the place of , or listening to what Lacan called the patients Other.(with a capital O) that is to a discourse which goes beyond the involvement of two people.

87 According to Lacan, the analyst needs to distinguish, in the patient’s speech, two registers - he the analyst is as the other through whom the patients desire is alienated; and as the other, to whom the patients true speech is addressed.

130 Desire for and of the other 欲望は二通り「他者」の欲望である。つまり，人間の欲望は「他者」が欲求するものであるとともに「他者」を欲求する事でもある。 131 For Lacan, The crucial fact is that once the child has the capacity for language, there is a qualitative change in his psychical structure- he becomes a subject. ラカンにとっては肝心なことは子供が言語を獲得する時に，その子供の精神は本質的に変化されるのである。

173 In this way the Other becomes the real witness and guarantor of the subject’s existence, as it is he who recognises the subject. Thus the basic ontological question, which concerns the nature of the subjects being, leads to considering the subject basic dependence upon the Other. This Other is not affected by the same lack as the subject, and can be identified with the mothers original role in relation to the infant. The mother looks after the infant, loves or rejects him, calls him by a name and tells him who he is. she is the ‘M=Other’ who created him. The Other is the ‘place’ where the subject is born, not only as a biological entity, but as a subject with a human existence. The Other was there before the subjects birth as ‘absolute being’, is the one who can recognise and love him.

JL FFPPA 144 It is in the space of the other that he sees himself and the point at which he looks at himself is also the in that space. Now this is also the point from which he speaks, it is in the locus of the Other that he begins to constitute that truthful lie.

188-205の間 場所 First I stressed the division that I made by opposing..... the two fields of the subject and the Other. The Other is the locus in which is situated the chain of signifiers that governs whatever may be present of the subject- it is the field of that living being in which the subject has to appear.

207The signifier produces itself in the field of the other, makes manifest the subject of its significations.

208 This egocentric discourse is a case of hail the good listener: What we find once again here is the constitution of the subject in the field of the Other, as I have designated for you in this little arrow on the black board.

           diamond shape with clockwise arrows

If he is apprehended at his birth in the filed of the Other, the characteristics of the subject of the unconscious is that of being beneath the signifier that develops its networks, its chains and its history, at an intermediate place.

JL Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis 想像的自分を持ち続ける 11the subject ends up by recognising that his being has never been anything more than his construct in the imaginary and that his construct disappoints all certitudes. For in this labour which he undertakes to construct for another (精神分析者）, he finds again the fundamental alienation which made him construct it like another one, and has always destined it to be stripped away from him by another one.

Other the scene of the word in so far as the scene of the word is in a third position between two subjects. Even if the subject is talking to himself the category of Other plays its part. Anika Lemaire “JL” 60Henceforth a certain self presence (I) is possible only through the genesis of a third term, a mediating concept which determines each term, ordering and distinguishing between them.

76Being produced in the place of the Other ( the symbolic) 157 The Other is (i)Language, the site of signifiers “the other by which we designate a place essential to the structure of the symbolic” (ii)The site of intersubjectivity of patient and analyst, and hence the analytic dialogue. The Other is the locus in Which is constituted the I who speaks with him who hears. (iii)the unconscious....? (iv) The father or mother

ラカンにとっては幼児は言語を獲得する時点でその精神構造が本質的な変化を通過する。その時点で幼児は主体になるのである。しかし，言語を獲得するのことが，そのような「主体」になる為の必要条件の一つであるが，言語を話せるから幼児は主体となるとはかぎらない。そこでラカンが「私」という言葉が示す存在と，「私」を発言する存在を区別することを注目できる。第一者は「私」という言葉によって示された概念的あるいは物理的な存在であるのに対して，第二者はその言葉を（広い意味で）発言する存在である。我々が内言で考える時に，「私」という言葉は客観的な存在を示す同時に，その内言を発話すると考えられる存在である。「私」などの第一人称はその特性をもって，「あなた」や「彼」というのは示されるものとしてしか存在しない。そこで，幼児が「je」を使うために，「tu」（あなた）と「il」（彼）と「elle」（彼女）との違いを理解しなければならない。つまり「je」という言葉を使えるようになる為には，それが占める言語の中の位置を理解しなければならない。ラカンは「『私』は動詞的単語であり，話される規準としての他者との対称において獲得されている。「私」は「あなた」との特定な対称において生まれている」。つまり「je」を用いるようになるために子供は言語的な他者の存在を知らなければならないと論じられる。しかし，それに加えて「je」を内言の自己言及することばとして使って，言語的な自己意識を持つためには内言を発話する「私」が想定される。この内面的な自己意識としての「私」が存在すると考えられる瞬間に，内面的な言語的空間が開かれているとラカンは論じる。言語的自己意識に要求されている「他者」（le　Autre）はこのように「他者とは聞き手と話す「私」が構成される場所である」。つまり，言語的な自己意識を持つためには，内面的な他者を措定しなければならない。子供は父という第三者の存在を知らなければならないだけではなく，父に基づいた「他者」の存在を自分の内面にもあると考えなければ，自分の言語的な存在は無意味である。他の所で「言語は言語それ実体になるためには誰かがその言語を信じなければならない」（Ｓ１，２２９）または「すべての具体的な対話にも内心理学的交際にも他者の存在が前提されている」（Ｓ３，２７３）とラカンは述べるが，彼はこの他者の理論を証明する事実を上げることはない。ラカンの他者の理論は彼の自我構造の理論の一つの論理的前提であって，その理論全体が臨床治療において用いられることによってもとらされる成果によってしか証明されないのである。 　非常に特別な状況でなければ，この「他者」は「私」が話す宛名としての相手ではない。考える時にも，話す時にも我々はさまざまな相手をその内言・発言の宛名にすることができる。しかし我々は自分心身に向けて内言を発する時にも，その言葉が内的な傍聴者だと考えるものを前提する。この傍聴者としての他者の性格がラカンが精神分析の場面について述べることから伺える。ラカン流の精神分析において，精神分析家が患者の「他者」の役割を演じ，患者の内的な「他者」の化身と考えられる。精神分析家がほとんど発言しないのはその「他者」の性質を模範するためでもある。この作法は，患者の語りを無言に聞いている精神分析家の存在を意識させるっことによって，患者自身の中にある他者の存在を気づかせる目的をもっている。精神分析家が患者の「他者」と重なるのは，精神分析家が直接に話しかけられる時ではない。むしろ，その時に患者は対抗したり，自分の語りから葛藤を感じさせる事実を隠蔽したりする。しかし，「そうですか，それで」としか繰り返しいう精神分析家は，患者の内面に他者と同じ役割を演じている。

ラカンの他者はフロイトの超自我という概念を継承しているが，ラカンはその両者の間の差異を強調する。フロイトの超自我より，ラカンの他者は抽象的であるし，その基盤はそれぞれ違う。フロイトの超自我は内面家されている両親に象られた主体を罰するものとして考えるが，ラカンの「他者」は言語的な自我を手には入る為の必要条件しかない。精神分析と懺悔の類似はすでに示されるが，ラカンの「他者」とキリスト教の全知の神とは明らかに偶然以上の関連性をもっている。キリスト聖書には神様と聖なる言葉との関係はヨハネの福音書の文頭からも明白される。「初めには事阿ｂがあった。言葉は神と共にあった。言葉は神であった。この小多ｂは初めに神と共にあった。すべてのものはそれによってできた。」さらにキリスト教巻の国には古来，内言をも聞こえ，「審判の日」までにその内言を記録さえする神様が信じられてきたことはラカンの「他者」の理論とは無関係ではない。ヴイットゲンシュタインが主張した「私的言語の不可能性」の理論もラカンと同じ結論に到っている。つまり，一人だけで発言されている言語は片言になり，ルールを持たず，言語としては機能できないので，内言をもって自己意識を確保する為には内的な審判員が心理的に要求されると考えられるであろう。