Changes

According to Jacques Lacan, sexuation, as distinct from biological sexuality, designates the way in which the subject is inscribed in the difference between the sexes, specifically in terms of the unconscious and castration, that is, as "inhabiting language" (Lacan, 1998, p. 80)[[Image:Sexuation.jpg|right|thumb]]

According to [[Jacques Lacan presented the complete table of the formulas of ]], <i>[[sexuation on March 13]]</i>, 1973as distinct from [[biology|biological]] [[sexuality]], during one of designates the way in which the [[subject]] is inscribed in the [[difference]] between the lectures [[sexes]], specifically in [[terms]] of his seminar Encore (1972-1973), but as early as 1971 he began to use his own symbols for the logical quantifiers [[unconscious]] and the function Φx (figure 1)[[castration]].

[[Lacan's choice ]] presented the [[complete]] [[table of the term formulas of sexuation]] on March 13, and not sexuality1973, indicates that being recognized as a man or woman is a matter during one of the signifierlectures of his 1972-1973 [[seminar]] <i>[[Encore]]</i>.

The phallus is situated as a symbol, the signifier [[Lacan]]'s [[choice]] of castration and thus also of desire. The Law that is transmitted by the father term '[[sexuation]]', and not [[sexuality]], indicates that states the prohibition against incest [[being]] recognized as a [[man]] or [[woman]] is also the foundation a matter of desire. And this is the Law of castration, which Lacan designated in his graph as the phallic function, Φx[[signifier]].

To construct these formulasThe [[phallus]] is situated as a [[symbol]], Lacan relied on the Aristotelian logic according to which propositions are categorized in four classes: the universal affirmative, the universal negative, the particular affirmative, and the particular negative. But Lacan adopted modern symbols for these categories, which are based on the universal quantifier, ∀, [[signifier]] of [[castration]] and the existential quantifier, ∃thus also of [[desire]].

On the left side of the table, there appears the formula ∀xΦx, for all x Φ of x (all men are submitted to the phallic function, The [[Law]] that is, castration). But modern logic has demonstrated transmitted by the necessity of a particular negative, ∃xΦx (there exists at least one [[father]] and that states the [[prohibition]] against [[incest]] is not submitted to also the phallic function), in order to found the universal affirmative[[foundation]] of [[desire]]. This And this is the hypothesis that Sigmund Freud developed in his myth [[Law]] of the primal father in Totem and Taboo (1912-1913a)[[castration]], and also which [[Lacan]] designated in his argument that Moses was not a Jew in Moses and Monotheism (1939a): there always exists one who is an exception. This is how man is inscribed: by [[graph]] as the [[phallic function]], but on the condition that this function "is limited due to the existence of an x by which the function Φx is negated" (Lacan, p. 79). This is the function of the father.

The other side of To [[construct]] these [[formulas]], [[Lacan]] relied on the table concerns the "woman portion of speaking beings" (p. 80). The upper line is read as follows[[Aristotle|Aristotelian]] [[logic]] according to which propositions are categorized in four classes: there does not exist any x that does not fall under # the phallic function. In other words[[universal]] affirmative, castration functions for all women. But on # the lower line Lacan introduced a negation marked by the barring of universal [[negative]], #the universal quantifier[[particular]] affirmative, which is quite inconceivable from and # the perspective of formal logic. Lacan proposed that it be read as "not-wholeparticular negative."

The woman's side of the table "will not allow But Lacan adopted modern [[symbols]] for any universality" (p. 80). Woman is not wholly within these [[categories]], which are based on the phallic function. On this side there is no exception that could serve as universal quantifier, ∀, and the basis for a set of women. It is from this fact that Lacan derived the formulaexistential quantifier, "Woman doesn't exist." This formula leaves no room for any idea of an "essence" of femininity∃.

Below the table of formulas, there is a "scanded indication of what is in question" (p. 80). On the masculine [[left]] side, there is the barred subject "and the F that props him up as signifier" (p. 80). For the male is only able to reach his partner, the Other, through castration and the mediation of the object a as its effect. This is indicated by the arrow that crosses from the male side to the female sidetable, which also reproduces there appears the Lacanian formula of fantasy. On the feminine side, woman is doubled: she has a relation with F∀xΦx, insofar as a man incarnates it for her. But she is not wholly in that relation. She also has a relation all x Φ of x (all [[men]] are submitted to the signifier of A, the signifier that the Other would need if a set of women were going to be formed. Woman's jouissance is thus divided between [[phallic jouissance, linked to castration and appearing on the graph as Ffunction]], and an Other jouissance that is unique to her. Thus there is neither symmetry between the two sides of the table, nor any complementarity between the sexes[[castratio]]).

See This is the hypothesis that [[Sigmund Freud]] developed in his [[myth]] of the [[primal father]] in <i>[[Totem and Taboo]]</i><ref>1912-1913a</ref> and alsoin his argument that [[Moses]] was not a [[Jew]] in <i>[[Moses and Monotheism]]</i><ref>1939a</ref>: there always [[exists]] one who is an [[exception]]. This is how [[man]] is inscribed: Graph by the [[phallic function]] but on the condition that this function "is limited due to the [[existence]] of Desire; Jouissance (an x by which the function Φx is negated."<ref>Lacan); Matheme; Phallus; Sex differences, p.79</ref>BibliographyThis is the function of the [[father]].

The other side of the table concerns the "woman portion of [[speaking]] beings."<ref>p. 80</ref> The upper line is read as follows: there does not [[exist]] any x that does not fall under the [[phallic function]]. In other [[words]], [[castration]] functions for all [[women]]. But on the lower line [[Lacan]] introduced a [[negation]] marked by the barring of the universal quantifier, which is quite inconceivable from the perspective of [[formal]] logic. Lacan proposed that it be read as "[[not-whole]]."  The [[woman]]'s side of the table "will not allow for any [[universality]]."<ref>p. 80</ref>[[Woman]] is not wholly within the [[phallic function]]. On this side there is no [[exception]] that could serve as the basis for a set of women. It is from this fact that Lacan derived the [[formula]], "[[Woman does not exist]]." This formula leaves no room for any [[idea]] of an "[[essence]]" of [[femininity]]. Below the table of formulas, there is a "scanded indication of what is in question" (p. 80). On the [[masculine]] side, there is the [[barred]] subject "and the F that props him up as signifier" (p. 80). For the [[male]] is only able to reach his partner, the [[Other]], through [[castration]] and the mediation of the ''[[object a]]'' as its effect. This is indicated by the arrow that crosses from the male side to the [[female]] side, which also reproduces the [[Lacanian]] formula of [[fantasy]]. On the [[feminine]] side, [[woman]] is doubled: she has a relation with F, insofar as a [[man]] incarnates it for her. But she is not wholly in that relation. She also has a relation to the [[signifier]] of A, the [[signifier]] that the [[Other]] would [[need]] if a set of women were going to be formed. Woman's [[jouissance]] is thus [[divided]] between [[phallic jouissance]], linked to [[castration]] and appearing on the [[Graph]] as F, and an [[Other jouissance]] that is unique to her. Thus there is neither symmetry between the two sides of the table, nor any complementarity between the sexes. ==See Also==* [[Graph of Desire]]* [[Jouissance (Lacan)]]* [[Matheme]]* [[Phallus]]* [[Sex differences]] ==References==<references/># [[Lacan, Jacques]]. (1970-1971). Le séminaire-livre XVIII, d'un [[discours ]] qui ne serait pas du [[semblant]]. [On a [[discourse ]] that might not be a [[semblance]]] (unpublished seminar). * # ——. (1971-1972). Le séminaire-livre XIX, . . . ou pire [. . . or worse].(unpublished seminar). * # ——. (1998). The seminar of Jacques Lacan, book XX, on [[feminine sexuality]]: The limits of [[love ]] and [[knowledge]], encore. ([[Bruce Fink]], Trans.) New York: Norton. (Original [[work ]] published 1972-1973) [[Category:New]]