is not an “increase” of jouissancebut an incapacity of the Symbolic to manage the po-
tentially destructive lack of jouissancethat jouis-sansis. In other words, jouissancecan-
not be accumulated because it relies on lack; we cannot objectively accumulate
lack, we can say that (−1) +(−1) =−2 only if we tacitly assume that −1 is some-
thing “more” than sheer lack—if from the very beginning, we deceitfully turn
−1 into +1.... According to Lacan, the capitalist discourse epitomizes perversion
precisely insofar as it pretends to enjoy the real object a(the lack) as accumulated
jouissance.^267
( 4 ) Jouissanceis a precondition of the inextricable relationship between the drive
and desire. More precisely, the drive supplies a partial “masochistic” satisfaction of
unconscious desire precisely through the dissatisfaction of jouis-sans.As a conse-
quence, jouissanceis generally a necessary precondition of human beings as desiring
beings of language. Most importantly, jouissance(of the object a) is not only that
which, so to speak, inevitably “accompanies” the signifier yet remains detached
from it: jouissancealso emerges inthe signifier itself. The drive is not unspeakable, it
“utters itself ” in language in the guise of jouis-sens.Enjoyment (or, better, its lack)
is also enjoy-meant. Jouis-sansalso indicates a linguistic lack of sense,an intrinsic lim-
itation of symbolic knowledge (savoir)as such; inasmuch as symbolic knowledge is
not-all in the unconscious, it should also be regarded as a “means of jouissance.”^268
The reason for this dual nature of jouis-sansis straightforward: the Symbolic (in its
interplay with the Imaginary) in which the Real of the object atears holes struc-
tures both the “libidinal” realm of desire/sexuality and the “epistemological”
realm of knowledge. The basic Lacanian a priori for this parallelism can be found
in the dictum according to which “The unconscious is structured like a language”:
desire and knowledge are the same unconscious linguistic structure, and both par-
take of jouis-sans.Putting together the “libidinal” acceptation of the object awith its
“epistemological” counterpart, we may argue that the fact that there is no Other of
the Other entails the “nonsense” (that is, the “epistemological” side of the object
a) of the lack of jouissance,the lack of relation between the sexes (that is, the “libid-
inal” side of the object a).
( 5 ) In his last Seminars, most noticeably in Seminar XXIII, Lacan avails himself of
at least four different variants of the notion of jouissancewhich, in my opinion,
should nevertheless all be linked, directly or indirectly, to the object a.The first
variant concerns the phallic jouissanceof the object ain the fundamental fantasy:
Lacan uses the algebraic sign Jφto express it. In brief, this is the jouissancethat allows
the subject to “make One” as an individuated being of language, the noneliminable
real supplement of phantasmatic symbolic identification. It is only on the basis of