Resposta a uma letra em instância

Abstract

The author, using the misconception of the double meaning of lettre in French: letter and correspondence, starts from the instance of the letter, as that which finds no response in Other. The purloined letter-correspondence, in suffering, the letter that does not arrive, in suspension, that causes, makes a crack-trauma symptom that is written into the meat of the subject. This is the original mark of a subject, a material crystallization and unique. But the letter-correspondence, written, unanswered, always reaches, achieves, touches your destination. The impact of this reach is not the end, sense but the enjoyment. The subject could be a response to the letter, the One Without the Other, argument of symptom’s function. Comes into the Real, incidentally, where there is no relationship. perceiving it only makes a mark. Is The Saying that read the letter as it symptom, which inaugurates the speaking being, the ex-sistence. The “opaque enjoyment” denounced in subsequent, by the letter, renounced, hence emerging the fantasy. The speaking being writes his novel from the sequence: crack – letter – speech – written. Suffering, symptom and truth, whose repetition the subject makes it your destination. The analyst responds to the demand for interpretation with The Saying that no when the court makes the loss of sense, suspending the true. The apophantic Saying would lead the repetition beyond, with the crack letter reach a hollowed meaning, achieve the possibility of the act. How to respond with misunderstanding, is how to respond with poetry, as it turns otherwise, unheard, the significant chain. The matter of the symptom, significant, may thereby lose consistency. The responsibility of saying is the response of the Saying that makes node between the subject and the letter. An passing analysand responds by the real. The letter reaches its destination when does not mean anything, which allows to use it for something else.