full speech

from lacan’s seminar 1:

Full speech is speech which aims at, which forms, the truth such as it becomes established in the recognition of one person by another. Full speech is speech which performs. One of the subjects finds himself, afterwards, other than he was before. That is why this dimension cannot be evaded in the analytic experience.

We cannot think of the analytic experience as a game, a lure, an intrigue based on an illusion, a suggestion. Its stake is full speech. Once this point has been made, as you might have already noticed, lots of things sort themselves out and are clarified, but lots of paradoxes and contradictions appear. The value of this conception is precisely to bring out these paradoxes and contradictions, which doesn’t make them opacities and obscurities. On the contrary, it is often what appears to be harmonious and comprehensible which harbours some opacity. And inversely it is in the antinomy, in the gap, in the difficulty, that we happen upon opportunities for transparency. This is the point of view on which our method is founded, and so, I hope, is our progress.


“In effect, the achievement of symbolic realization, the abolition of the symptom, the integration of every traumatic kernel into the symbolic universe, this final and ideal moment when the subject is finally liberated from Imaginary opacity, (…)” (Z)

is full speech a “resolution” of opacity?.. or -let’s say- a “refactoring” of it?

if it is a “resolution”, then “one can apprach” it in terms of “desire”, and “desire” (not-ness (in space)) will then turn into “drive” (un-ness (in time)).

if it is a “refactoring”, then it is not a matter of “desire” (in space), but “punctuation” (discourse through space-time)…. even a “propitious punctuation” against “intuitionist and phenomenological psychology” and against “all real contact”:


from Lacan’s “Function and Field of Speech” in Ecrits:

Indeed, however empty his discourse may seem, it is so only if taken at face value—the value that justifies Mallarme’s remark, in which he compares the common use of language to the exchange of a coin whose obverse and reverse no longer bear but eroded faces, and which people pass from hand to hand “in silence.” This metaphor suffices to remind us that speech, even when almost completely worn out, retains its value as a tessera.

Even if it communicates nothing, discourse represents the existence of communication; even if it denies the obvious, it affirms that speech constitutes truth; even if it is destined to deceive, it relies on faith in testimony.

Thus the psychoanalyst knows better than anyone else that the point is to figure out [entendre] to which “part” of this discourse the significant term is relegated, and this is how he proceeds in the best of cases: he takes the description of an everyday event as a fable addressed as a word to the wise, a long prosopopeia as a direct interjection, and, contrariwise, a simple slip of the tongue as a highly complex statement, and even the rest of a silence as the whole lyrical development it stands in for.

It is, therefore, a propitious punctuation that gives meaning to the subject’s discourse. This is why the ending of the session—which current technique makes into an interruption that is determined purely by the clock and, as such, takes no account of the thread of the subject’s discourse—plays the part of a scansion which has the full value of an intervention by the analyst that is designed to precipitate concluding moments. Thus we must free the ending from its routine framework and employ it for all the useful aims of analytic technique.

This is how regression can occur, regression being but the bringing into the present in the subject’s discourse of the fantasmatic relations discharged by an ego at each stage in the decomposition of its structure. After all, the regression is not real; even in language it manifests itself only by inflections, turns of phrase, and “stumblings so slight” that even in the extreme case they cannot go beyond the artifice of “baby talk” engaged in by adults. Imputing to regression the reality of a current relation to the object amounts to projecting the subject into an alienating illusion that merely echoes one of the analyst’s own alibis.

This is why nothing could be more misleading for the analyst than to seek to guide himself by some supposed “contact” he experiences with the subject’s reality. This vacuous buzzword of intuitionist and even phenomenological psychology has become extended in contemporary usage in a way that is thoroughly symptomatic of the ever scarcer effects of speech in the present social context. But its obsessive value becomes flagrant when it is recommended in a relationship which, according to its very rules, excludes all real contact.




from Lacan’s seminar 7: ethics of psychoanalysis

And it is here that a question arises. How do we explain the dissipatory power of this central image relative to all the others that suddenly seem to descend upon it and disappear? The articulation of the tragic action is illuminating on the subject. It has to do with Antigone’s beauty. And this is not something I invented; I will show you the passage in the song of the Chorus where that beauty is evoked, and I will prove that it is the pivotal passage. It has to do with Antigone’s beauty and with the place it occupies as intermediary between two fields that are symbolically differentiated. It is doubtless from this place that her splendor derives, a splendor that all those who have spoken worthily of beauty have never omitted from its definition.

Moreover, as you know, this is the place that I am attempting to define. I have already come close to it in previous lectures, and I attempted to grasp it the first time by means of the second death imagined by Sade’s heroes – death insofar as it is regarded as the point at which the very cycles of the transformations of nature are annihilated. This is the point where the false metaphors of being (l’étant) can be distinguished from the position of Being (L’être) itself, and we find its place articulated as such, as a limit, throughout the text of Antigone, in the mouths of all.the characters and of Tiresias. But how can one also not fail to see this position in the action itself? Given that the middle of the play is constituted of a time of lamentation, commentary, discussions, and appeals relative to an Antigone condemned to a cruel punishment. Which punishment? That of being buried alive in a tomb.

^^ so here’s the “crypt” that distinguishes algorithms of “decryption” (= statist placements of “keys”) from acts of “decipherment” (= full speech, refactoring of discourse by “propitious punctuation”)


i’m interested in “full speech” in general, not only in analysis. in fact i am aiming towards “general will” of rousseau (that zizek mentioned in istanbul), so this may bring about some kind of “divine violence” (that is “more violent than hitler”). i believe “empathy” and “darian leader” are also related to this, but i can only find out how after reading them

note: like “theory” means “certain kind of seeing” http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory, “ausculter” can refer to that “certain kind of listening” http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ausculto “listen to a patient’s chest” a fitting term in aiming at science as such…. any full speech today eventually faces the violence of democratic legal teargassing, so it better be a divine+scientific+violent full speech=general will


i think “general will” would be something that would no longer demand anything since it is “general” and not “particular”

for example after gezi resistance, firstly “park forums” were founded that worked with communication procedures (where “particular” speakers existed with respect to “abstract universality” of procedures), then they turned into “solidarities” in neighborhoods, these are less procedural and more dependant on “ausculter” (when you speak in a solidarity meeting, since there is no abstract “legal” procedure (apart from an indefinite “moderation”), you can no longer be “particular” and your speech then has to resemble some kind of “general will”, so you can “question”, “point out”, “express” but you cannot “demand”) (i have to admit that these conceptions are based on -not so many- observations, i have to rely on “ausculter” :))


here’s a concrete problem: there’s a solidarity, there are artists and leftists in it. some artists ask for artistic freedom, some leftists demand agreement on leftist principles etc. maybe this question can be solved by developing an antigonean stance. and such a stance may have to negate “law” (equality for those who are more free) and “art” (freedom for those who are more equal) universally. (here’s an interview with my local “solidarity” http://bianet.org/…/150740-don-quixote-occupies-the… i attended only one of their meetings)

One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s