二つの欠如 Deux manques （Lacan , Paul Verhaeghe）

◆Causation and Destitution of a Pre-ontological Non-entity: On the Lacanian Subject（Paul Verhaeghe 1998、PDF）よりの「純粋な」メモ（資料として、英文のまま貼り付ける）。

やや古い論文だが、ヴェルハーゲのこの考え方は最近まで変わっていない。

つまり、2013年のThe function and the field of speech and language in psychoanalysis : A commentary on Lacan’s ‘Discours de Rome’. - Paul Verhaeghe, Vancouver, May 2013.とほぼ同様なことが記されているのだが、1998年の論文のほうが詳細にわたるので、ここに英文のまま「二つの欠如」をめぐる箇所を掲げる。

…………


【二つの欠如 Deux manques】

In Seminar XI, Lacan began his discussion of the causation of the subject with something that was already well-known to his audience: the drive, being always a partial drive, revolves around a lack. However, at that point, Lacan surprised his audience by stating that there are two lacks.16

《Deux manques, ici se recouvrent. 》

【シニフィアン連鎖のなかの欠如】

The first one is the lack in the chain of signifiers, the interval between two signifiers. This is the typically hysterical – and thus Freudian – level in which desire can never be fully expressed, let alone satisfied. In Lacanian terms, this reads that the subject, confronted with the enigma of the desire of the Other, tries to verbalise this desire and thus constitutes itself by identifying with the signifiers in the field of the Other, without ever succeeding in filling the gap between subject and Other. Hence, the continuous movement from signifier to signifier, in which the subject alternately appears and disappears. The ensuing alienation is a continuous flywheel movement around the lack in the chain of signifiers, resulting in what Lacan called l'avènement du sujet, the advent of the subject.17

《L'un qui ressortit au défaut, au défaut central autour de quoi tourne la dialectique de l'avènement du sujet à son propre être dans la relation à l'Autre, par le fait que le sujet dépend du signifiant en tant que le signifiant est d'abord au champ de l'Autre.》 P.323


【もうひとつの欠如】

So far, Lacan's theory is not really new. It could also be understood from a Sartrean or an Althusserian point of view. The innovation begins when Lacan surprises his audience by stating that there is yet another lack, which he calls anterior and real in comparison to its counterpart.18

Furthermore, the lack in the chain of signifiers is only a retake on this primal lack, the originality of which resides in the fact that it has to be understood in the context of l'avènement du vivant (the advent of the living being). This entails the emergence of sexual re-production in phylogeny, which is repeated with every ontogeny.19

《Et ce manque vient à recouvrir, vient à reprendre, un autre manque qui est le manque réel, antérieur, à ce que nous le situions à l'avènement du vivant, à la reproduction sexuée. Ce manque c'est ce que le vivant perd de sa part de vivant : - à être ce vivant qui se reproduit par la voie sexuée, c'est ce manque qui se rapporte à quelque chose de réel qui est ceci : que le vivant, d'être sujet au sexe, est tombé sous le coup de la mort individuelle. 》


【原初の喪失】

At this point, the level of Unbegriff (incomprehension), beyond the psychological comprehensibility of the previous lack, is reached.20 The anterior lack concerns the price life has to pay for the acquisition of sexual reproduction. From the moment an organism becomes capable of reproducing itself in a sexual way, it loses its individual immortality and death becomes an unavoidable necessity. At birth, the individual loses something and this loss will be represented later on by all other substitute objects.21

Lacan tries to depict this primary loss with his myth of the lamella, the object that flies away at birth and that is nothing but pure life instinct. The lamella equals the libido, of which the four forms of the object a are the mere representatives. From this moment in Lacan's thought, there is an essential affinity between drive and death.22

« Je vais vous parler de la lamelle »

《C'est de cela que représente l'équivalent, les équivalents possibles, toutes les formes que l'on peut énumérer, de l'objet(a). Ils ne sont que représentants, figures. 》

【二つの欠如の重なり】

Sexual drive means death drive, as an inevitable consequence of the process of sexualization.23 Here, Lacan endorses Freud's idea of a Triebmischung (a fusion of life and death drives) in The Ego and the Id, but he will go much further.24

Indeed, Lacan will formulate a whole new theory of causality, in which he transcends the level of normal science that is only interested in laws, that is to say in regularity and predictability. Hence, the constitution of the subject is based on the interaction between life and death, between the two different lacks and their overlap. The Other is 'the field of that living being in which the subject has to appear.'26

《l'Autre comme le champ de ce vivant où le sujet a à apparaître. 》

【二つの欠如の非-相互依存性】

The crucial thing concerning these two lacks is that their interaction entails neither reciprocity nor complementarity: 'It is a lack engendered from the previous time that serves to reply to the lack raised by the following time.'28

《c'est un manque engendré du temps précédent, qui sert à répondre au manque suscité par le temps suivant. 》


【四つの言説の「不可能性／不能性」（欲望／享楽）と二つの欠如】

The overlap is situated in what Lacan calls 'the intersection between subject and Other,' and it is there that the second operation, which is termed 'separation,' takes place. The ever failing interaction between the two lacks also determines the non-existence of a perfect sexual relationship. This will be further elaborated by Lacan in his theory of the four discourses, in which the two lacks receive their final denomination: the lack on the upper level (the level of desire) concerns an impossibility (impossibilité), whereas the lack on the lower level (the level of jouissance) concerns impotence (impuissance). The four discourses are four ways of coping with these two lacks.29

ーーわたくしの知るかぎり、このような形で四つの言説の「impossibilité／impuissance」を解釈したのは、ヴェルハーゲが初めてである。二つの欠如、 automaton／tuché（後述）　もこれにかかわる。


※参照：「四つの言説」（ラカン）概説（Paul Verhaeghe）

【フロイトの Menschwerdung】

Implicit in Lacan's reasoning, there are two levels in alienation, corresponding to the two lacks mentioned above. The first level concerns the mythical point of origin – mythical because of the very idea of origin – in which l'être (being) as such has to make its appearance in the field of the Other, of language. This coincides with what Freud, in his essay on Moses, calls 'hominization' (Menschwerdung), the process of becoming a human being.62

………

【アリストテレスの automaton／tuché 】

It is evident that this opens completely different perspectives on the subject of determinism. On the whole, Lacan is much more optimistic than Freud in this respect. 'It is always a question of the subject qua indeterminate,' and this has effects on the goal and finality of the treatment.37 But the innovation goes much further, as it also implies a new view on the tricky subject of causality. The novelty resides in the way Lacan puts the lack at the centre of the – indeed – twofold stage. The denominations are provided by Aristotle, but their content is new: automaton (αủτoματov) versus tuchè (τuχη).38

《…entre l'αύτόματον [ automaton ], et ce qu'il désigne comme la « fortune » : la τύχη [ tuché ], à définir justement comme rencontre du réel. 》


【象徴界の欠如／現実界の穴（ブラックホール）】

The automaton is the level that is the easiest to understand. It concerns the network or chain of signifiers, in which the 'pulsatile function of the unconscious' is at work. The barred subject ($) pops up and disappears under these signifiers – 'the signifier represents a subject for another signifier.'39 In this, the subject is indeed determined, as Lacan had demonstrated time and again with his theory on the unconscious as being structured like a language.40 The automatic character of this determinism was masterfully demonstrated in his Seminar on 'The Purloined Letter,' showing how the chain of signifiers is indeed a chain.41

This is the level of the law, at which science aims, with its preponderant interest for the causa efficiens (efficient cause), and it may convince one of the omnipresence of determinism.42 It took Freud until 1920, in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, to recognize the fallacy in this reasoning, and thus the hole in the mechanistic universe.43

The hole will prove to be a black one. This brings us to the second level. The unwinding of the associative chain succeeds only to a certain point, something which Freud experienced time and again during his therapeutic work from the Studies on Hysteria onwards.44 The process of remembering succeeds only to a certain point where the chain stalls and shows an abyss, a gap.45

【象徴界内部に 外立Ex-sistenzする臍】

This is what Freud termed the 'primal repressed,' and what he also called the Nabel (navel) of the dream and the Kern unseres Wesens (the core of our being).46

It is at this point that the real ex-sists, the real in the sense of what cannot be assimilated by the chain of signifiers.47

Hence, the always missed encounter, due to the lack of a signifier as meeting-point. This radical lack is conceptualised by Lacan with the idea of tuchè and it is understood in terms of absence, abyss and cut, where the law and regularity of the chain are failing. This is also the level of pure causality, where law and predictability fail. 'In short, there is cause only in something that doesn't work.'48

【欲望の automaton／享楽の tuché】

Hence, we find ourselves again dealing with two levels. On the one hand, there is the chain of signifiers with the lack between them (Freud: the repressed). This is the level of the automaton, of the law and predictability, and thus of science. Underlying this chain, we find a more fundamental lack, concerning the real beyond any signifier (Freud: the primal repressed). This is the level of the tuchè, of cause and unpredictability.

…………

【三つの原動因（原欠如） Ⱥ】

What is this real all about? Lacan is quite clear on this point. The real beyond the signifier, functioning as cause, is drive-ridden, and that is why Lacan took the drive as his starting-point. With this aspect of the real, the meeting is always a failed one, because it contains no signifier. In the course of his teaching, Lacan enumerated the various manifestations of the real: the Other of the Other, the sexual relationship, Woman (La femme), all of them summarized in the notation of the barred Other.51 In this respect, the subject is fundamentally undetermined, and that is why it has a possibility of choice, beyond the determination of the automaton.

・Il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel 

・La Femme n'existe pas 

・L'Autre de l'Autre n'existe pas

ーーVerhaeghe, P. (1998).( Trauma and hysteria within Freud and Lacan, in The Letter. Lacanian Perspectives on Psychoanalysisより）。

il n'y a pas…” と “n'existe pas”は混乱してはならない、とジジェクは言っているが、ヴェルハーゲが上のように記しているのは、意図的だろうか（ラカン自身、Il n’y a pas d’Autre de l’Autreとしているときもあり、このあたりは判然としない）。

We should also not confuse the series of Lacan's “il n'y a pas…” (de l'Autre) with the series of “n'existe pas”: “n'existe pas” denies the full symbolic existence of the negated object (already for Hegel, existence is not being, but being as the appearing of an underlying symbolic‐notional essence), while “il n'y a pas” is more radical, it denies the very pre‐essential nomadic being of specters and other pre‐ontological entities.

In short, la Femme n'existe pas, mais il y a des femmes. The same goes for God and the unconscious: God does not exist, but “there are gods” who haunt us; the unconscious does not exist as a full ontological entity (Jung thought it did exist), but it insists in haunting us—which is why Lacan said that the true formula of atheism is “God is the unconscious.”89 （Zizek,LESS THAN NOTHING,2012)