ABOUT THE INSCRIPTION OF A KNOWING IN THE PLACE OF THE TRUTH

COHEN Veronica

The first Lacan's advance from Freud is the unconscious structured as a language. From his developments about the question of the freudian hypothesis of only one inscription in the unconscious.
However in the sixties it wasn't very easy to understand his formulation.
That what we could unfold today took his time.
Lacan's formulation was supported by what he called freudian reason. Freud arrives to the hypothesis of one inscription or double inscription? In The metapsychology where he asks himself: change of state or new inscription in a different place?
The answer is very simple and definitive: "Where id was, the subject should come to be".
It is about a procedure in the same place and different time, in logic time. Only one inscription.
The Subject is born in a universe of language.
That language on the body prints engraves and marks. It founds the instinct (trieb) edge of a hole where was an emptiness that allows the inscription, the incorporation to the language.

Lacan retakes the question on the Write The science and the truth, class 1 of The object of psychoanalysis Seminaries, that says:
"It is not only in the theory where the question of the double inscription is established, for being provoked the perplexity on that my pupils Laplanche and Leclaire could had reed on their own scission, on the way of abounding the matter, the solution."
Lacan establishes the matter of the double inscription and says, "it is not about a double inscription". "The inscription doesn't bite the same face of the scroll, coming of the truth or the knowing printing iron (la planche)".

What is that happens on the psychoanalysis crossroads on that moment that the Sixties are?
It still confuses the stroke with its multiplicity.

Lacan does not speak of the unconscious and the consciousness, but of "the truth face or the knowing face printing iron", advances from the Freud's topography on a topology of surfaces that presents Moebius Strip laying the foundations of only one inscription.

At that moment, at that time, as I understand, is made a lecture of this phrase that doesn't go beyond the narcissism of the own name. The own name is just a significant that represents the subject for other significants under wich it can be put. Lacan proposes that these significants be the ones of the freudian reason: a lecture where the knowing is in the place of the truth.
As I understand, Lacan proposes Jean Laplanche to let himself be printed by the truth of Freud is saying.
Lacan articulate unconscious and consciousness, knowing and truth as topologic structures and it is definitive, "it is not double inscription".
The unconscious is a place of the subject where id speaks without the subject knowing it. It is deeply mended by those retroaction effects of the significant involved on the word. The consciousness doesn't leave no trail behind.

There is a "pre-freudian" geometry, a plane geometry, euclidean. Freud's one is a projective geometry. Lacan departs from Freud and builds the unconscious with a topology of surfaces.

The stroke is just a mark, a first inscription that comes from the Other of language, the place of a "latent nomination" on the act of the enunciation, nucleus and "speaking heart of the subject", a place, a hole, a stroke where there was emptiness. There is a first inscription that has to do with that "where id was, the subject should come to be". The subject's work comes to be on his saying. That saying acts retroactively on that first inscription.
It says supporting on a cause.

The formulation "latent nomination" is also an advance and a development of Freud's formulation "where id was, the subject should come to be". It is on the trail of the unconscious structured as a language, the trail of only one inscription and the idea of change of state in the same place and different time.
To take the body as the biologic, not as the talking body involves the notion of original repression as a problem. The encounter is the language with the body driven by the significant, there is no other precedence.
There is no previous encounter with the biologic. There is no other previous than the existence of the language, of the symbolic. It is the language on the body that founds that stroke, pierces an emptiness.
On that time Lacan opposes to the confusion of the sexualized body with the biologic body. With the biology as a fundament, the emptiness place is filled with some kind of knowing, with some kind of being; in that case, the biologic being.

The question at that moment and even now is to lay under a significant. When? Where? In the saying it self. If under a said truth or the knowing that rejects it.
The nomination is no more than under what significants is laid a name from the enunciation. One inscription, one place of latent enunciation that will later meets with a serial, with a web of significants.
That identification to the stroke 1 is to the unconscious.
There is a latent nomination on that first inscription. Then the question as I understand, is to dispossess of the narcissism of the own name to let represent a subject to others produced significants. The subject produces, discovers his inscription in the same references of this inscription. Coming to be as a subject is nothing more than to lay under the fundamentals significants that been produced in the transference and name, nominate that first place that has been waiting for them.

As analysts, on this possible world that the speech of psychoanalysis is, beginning with Freud, one inscription: freudians.
We know with Lacan that is in a lacanian series.