Of Structure as the Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever

It certainly is not the common other, the auteur with a lower-case o, and this is why I have given a capital O as the initial letter to the Other of whom I am now: Speaking it would really be doing myself violence; to speak French. But the question that this person raised, that it would perhaps be difficult and even a little ridiculous for me to speak, ‘the English subject is not a simple thing for the psychoanalysts who have something to do with the subject’ proper. What exactly is in question is the status of the problem. Of the structure, not even the meaning of the words, but words in their flesh, in their material aspect—it is curious to note, even if in this case it is not absolutely proven, that words are the only material of the unconscious (and in any case I have never said that the unconscious was an assemblage of words, but that the unconscious is precisely structured): The first thing to start. In this context, that there is no meta-language (for it is necessary that all so called meta-languages be presented to you) with language. The subject cannot simply be identified. With the speaker or the personal pronoun in a sentence, it is a thinking with words, with thoughts that escape your vigilance. Your state of watchfulness, the best image to sum up the unconscious, is Baltimore in the early morning for a long time thinker’s. Searchers, and even inventors who were concerned with the question of the mind, have over the years put forward the idea of unity. As the most important and characteristic trait of structure, the idea of the unifying unity of the human condition has always had on me the effect of a scandal: IOU’s lie. The unconscious subject is something. That tends to repeat itself, but only one such repetition is necessary to constitute it. The trait, I insist, is identical, but ‘I’ assures the difference only of identity—not by effect of sameness or difference but by the difference of indemnity and this diversity is very important as it explains many things. About the structure of mental disease, in simple terms, this only means that in a universe of discourse nothing contains everything, and here you find again the gap that constitutes when the subject, the subject takes the place of the lack—a loss is introduced in the word, and this is the definition of “the” subject. ‘The’ sign is something that represents something for somebody, but the signifier is something that represents: A subject for another signifier. The question of desire is what the fading subject yearns to find itself again by means of some sort of encounter with this miraculous thing defined by the phantasm. Consider, however, that which is at the same time the least known and the most certain fact about this mythical—subject—which is the sensible phase of the living: Being this fathomless thing capable of experiencing something between birth and death, capable of covering the whole spectrum of pain and pleasure in a word., what in French we call the sujet de la jouissance.all that is elaborated by the subjective dr.e-construction on the scale of the signifier in its relation to the —ther, and which has its root in language is only th—r, to permit the full spectrum of desire to allow us to approach, to test, this sort of forbidden rapture, which is the only valuable meaning—that ‘be’, offered to our life is structured as the ‘in’ mixing of an auteur ’s prerequisite to any study? Whatever.

http://www.lacan.com/hotel.htm