The two “silent e” of l’une-bévue: Giving wings to “Il”

Lacan returns to his seminar Identification, and revises his psychic ternary, which becomes a strictly materialist ternary, that of three bodies: a body of the symbolic which is lalangue, the “language material”; a body of the imagination “distinct from the signified”; a body of reality “from which we do not know how it emerges”, but linked to this non-sexual relationship to which the speaking being is attached. From what he developed fifteen years earlier he only retains the torus, and the unary line, taken from behind.
The “double meaning” of the syllable “con”, which in the French language combines the Latin “cum” (= “with”) and “cunnus”, allows it to move from a problematic con-sistency, that of its only name to hold the three symbolic circles of the imaginary and the real, to a body-sistance, which refers not only to the female sex, but to what is missing from a two of the sex, to a “with”.
This is the one-blunder, one among others: signifying material unity which holds together this ternary, “the one” where the differential value of the signifier, the unity of the trait, its yardstick are abolished. phallic. The unit of measurement which nevertheless creates a chain between the three bodies.
The one-blunder makes the S2 the fund of the signifier, the S2 as “double meaning”. Double band, contraband of the signifier, exchange value which is canceled in non-value, metathesis or even metamorphism of the signifier rendering metaphor and metonymy obsolete, the equivocation that is the one-blunder produces a plethora of meaning, it that is to say a lie. Until the generalized holophrase, that is, “debility”. But to “do it real” it is not sure that she “does it”.
Fortunately, its equivocation with the German and Freudian Unbewuste is only approximate. The translanguage is not integral. It gives way to the hole of “not-knowing”, a bewusst of not-knowing, a knowledge “without the fact of knowing”. Otherwise the analysis could become an “autism of two”, a bubble of unified, reversible unconscious and conscious. The “He knows” (the Other) “that I know that he knows” is fallacious: it dooms the subject to subjective dispossession, or takes him towards telepathy, occultism. The “redoubling of the parenthesis”, proposed by A. Didier-Weill invited to express himself on the pass, allows us to “go further than the unconscious”, further than its “objectification”, up to this Real “who knows himself and wants to remain silent” and could without this redoubling be confused with an alienating absolute Knowledge. It allows us to go to this Real which is the shadowy mouth of the unconscious, pierced with a possible enunciation.
If Lacan welcomes the contribution of A. Didier-Weill, he also marks his disagreement, concerning the naming of this place of non-knowledge (Bozef), also concerning a “communion” of the subject and the Other. But his disagreement is also a dis-body: thus at least we can read the digression on the dew with which he introduces the intervention of A. Didier-Weill. This digression could lead us to the hematidrosis of the hermit, bloodless from sexual abstinence, yearning for the “enamored hands” of the “Inconnue”, of the poem by Apollinaire to which the “s’aile à mourre” already pointed “ of the title. If there is a “knowledge of reality”, and if it “is related to the body”, the poet, the poetry, the psychoanalyst if it “is similar” to a “puâtassez”, the analyzer, can materialize something, the “unbelievable” of a saying that opens up to reality. The poet and poetry, especially when it counts, as the French poetic tradition wants, the silent e in the verse, this silent e which also knows how to elide itself to give wings to the “He”.