68. Unconscious meaning is equal to the sum total of the signifying chains (made of sig-
nifiers) that constitute a subject.
69. Given that the unconscious is not “unidirectional,” new signifiers can be contempora-
neously added to allthe signifiers in the unconscious signifying chains that have an as-
sociative (either metonymic or metaphoric) link with them.
70. See Le séminaire livre V,p. 28. On the distinction between “admitted” (reçue) and “new” sig-
nification, see M. Safouan, Dix conférences de psychanalyse(Paris: Fayard, 2001 ), pp.10 0 ‒ 101.
71. “We must in fact consider all human significations as having been generated metaphor-
ically at some point” (Le séminaire livre V,p. 54 ).
72. For an overview of Laplanche’s arguments, see his collaborative article with S. Leclaire,
“The Unconscious: A Psychoanalytical Study,” Yale French Studies,no. 48 ( 1972 ); for Lacan’s
critique of Laplanche’s notion of the unconscious see, for example, his “Preface” to
A. Lemaire’s Jacques Lacan,esp. pp. xii–xiii.
73. On this issue, see especially The Seminar. Book III,p. 227.
74. “Metonymy exists from the beginning and makes metaphor possible. But metaphor be-
longs to a different level than metonymy” (ibid.). See also ibid., p. 225 ; Le séminaire livre V,
pp. 64 , 75.
75 .Écrits: A Selection,p. 147.
76. Ibid., p. 161.
77. J.-A. Miller, “Préface,” in Joyce avec Lacan, ed. J. Aubert (Paris: Navarin, 1987 ), p. 10.
78 .The Seminar. Book III,p. 185. See also ibid., p. 199.
79 .Écrits: A Selection,p.19 4.
80. Freud’s references to hieroglyphics are, on the other hand, more focused on the fact that
the images that compose them are, like the images of dreams, “not intended to be in-
terpreted but are only designed... to establish the meaning of some other elements”
(S. Freud, “The Claims of Psycho-Analysis to Scientific Interest,” in SE, XIII, p. 177 ; this
passage is quoted and commented on by Lacan in The Seminar. Book III,p. 247 ). As Lacan
remarks elsewhere: “Giving as an example Egyptian hieroglyphics... Freud shows us in
every possible way that the value of the image as signifier has nothing whatever to do
with its signification” (Écrits: A Selection,pp.159‒160). We would be wrong to think that
here Lacan limits himself to underlining once again the way in which the imaginary level
of language (the signified) depends on the symbolic level (the signifier). Indeed, he
clearly refers to the imaginarydimension of the unconscioussignifier—for instance, as it
presents itself in the dream. The unconscious has itselfan imaginary dimension which is
notthe conscious imaginary dimension of signification.Chapter 3 Oedipus as a Metaphor
1. See J. Lacan, The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955–56(London: Routledge, 1993 ), p. 249.
2. J. Lacan, Le séminaire livre V. Les formations de l’inconscient, 1957–1958(Paris: Seuil, 1998 ), p. 189.
3. J. Lacan, Le séminaire livre IV. La relation d’objet, 1956–1957(Paris: Seuil, 199 4), p. 199. See also
ibid., pp. 53 , 99 ; Le séminaire livre V,p. 163.notes to pages 54–68