12 June 2006

A Slip of the Pen

It's intriguing to note that I significantly misquote Lacan in the epigraph to the previous post. In Seminar 10 Lacan remarks that "Only love allows jouissance to condescend to desire", rather than "only love allows desire to condescend to jouissance". What is the significance of such an inversion?

6 Comments:

Blogger Daisy Kay said...

I wise man once told me that in order to understand a thing you must begin by defining any unclear terms. In this case condescend means to stop down to. The French word jouissance can be roughly translated to what ever gets you off. So what you meant to say was "Only love allows desire to step down to what ever gets you off" and what you said was "Only love allows whatever gets you off to step down to desire". This is all very Freudian for a Lacanian psychoanalist. The questions are what gets you off and what do you desire?

June 13, 2006 5:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daisy,

In reading your interpretation I felt a flash of irritation, so you must have hit on some truth I'd prefer not to look at! ;)

June 13, 2006 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Yusef said...

In your misquote of Lacan , you make love be desire.

In the correct quotation of Lacan, it is clear that love, desire, and joussaince are not the same...

Thanks for your great blog, which I read with avidity.

( Lucky for me to have caught it so early on.)

June 19, 2006 11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lacan is basically saying that love - through de-sublimation - enables the Real of desire to become accessible. put differently, through de-sublimation we can gain some distance/wiggle room to approach and emerge from the dangerous enjoyment of the Other in the realm of desire. alenka zupancic explores this interpretation in the last chapter of her wonderful book 'the shortest shadow'.

paul kingsbury

September 17, 2006 8:15 PM  
Blogger Sinthome said...

Thanks Paul. It's interesting that you would provide an explanation of what Lacan means, when the diary post is about a slip of the tongue or a parapraxes-- i.e., saying something like Freud's famous example in the _The Psychopathology of Everyday Life_, where a governmental official, prior to a meeting he knows will be straining, remarks "I now pronounces this meeting CLOSED", when he intended to say OPEN --where asking about the significance of such a slip, not about the meaning of Lacan's aphorism. Interestingly, Freud also suggests that *misreadings* are instances of parapraxes. You might find the Psychopathology of Everyday Life interesting.

September 17, 2006 9:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hi again sinthome, ah i see, your slip not lacan's. perhaps your 'slip' is not so much a slip as the outcome of a presumption that enjoyment must and can only be more base than desire. i'm intrigued by your suggestion that you 'slipped' rather than misquoted. if it is a slip, then lacan's meaning would be crucial to effectively read your desire.

best wishes,
paul

October 02, 2006 2:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home