whole Real, the mythical primordial zero which is retroactively counted as One—
which is then to say that the object asimultaneously stands for the absenceof jouis-
sance.This is a preliminary distinction of fundamental importance if we are to
understand Lacan’s notion of the subject of the Real. In other words, in the fantasy
Sa,the real dimension of the object aas absence of jouissance,castration, is that to
which the subject of unconscious desireand its infinite conatus is ultimately related;
while, at the same time, the real dimension of the object aas the presence of a resid-
ual jouissanceis that to which the subject of the driveis related. Although these com-
plex definitions will become clearer only toward the end of this chapter, at this
early stage one should already be able to grasp that, due to their mutual depen-
dence, the subject of desire and the subject of the drive are one and the same.
It is now important to emphasize that, for Lacan, everydrive should ultimately
be regarded as a deathdrive.^14 What does this mean? The death drive contains the
purest essence of the drive inasmuch as it corresponds to a subtractive element
which emerges in concomitance with the mythical birth of the Symbolic ex nihilo—
that is, with the formulation of the first signifier that transforms the primordial un-
dead Real into the void of the Thing (or, more precisely, of the object a).^15 The ex
nihilois therefore nothing but the ex nihiloof the death drive. The death drive is thus
a name for the irrevocable antisynthetic trait that forever separates the mythical un-
dead (which is “killed” by the signifier) from its symbolic designation. As a con-
sequence, the symbolic order as such relies on the conservation of difference
provided by the death drive as a subtractive drive. For the sake of clarity, we should
therefore logically distinguish:
( 1 ) the death drive as the subtraction from the primordial “One”qua absolute zero(and from
its alleged jouissance). This first movement, which is never repeated, corresponds to
the instauration of the Symbolic,^16 and should be regarded as retroactive; in other
words, it is possible here to consider the death drive as an “anti-synthetic” element
only after the (supposed) primitive “synthesis” of the primordial Real has been
broken by a contingent “material” change that is immanent to it. This point must
be made clear once again in order to avoid the risk of surreptitiously identifying
the death drive as initial antisynthetic element with any sort of transcendent
“will”;^17
( 2 ) the death drive as the repetitive subtraction from that which has become a Onesui gene-
ris, or more precisely, as Lacan specifies, from the “distinctive unity,”^18 the “one-
ness as pas-un”^19 of the Symbolic quadifferential order of the big Other. This is the
death drive stricto sensu.It is only on the basis of such an abstract (and mainly peda-
gogical) distinction between these two movements or “phases” of the death drive
that one can account for the difficulty Lacan apparently experienced in deciding