u/Its_me_noobs

I noticed that the English translations by Cormac Gallagher at lacaninireland.com for Seminars 12 and 13 have some lectures which are missing, saying that they have to be corrected and added. They are:

Seminar 12: Crucial Problems

1. Lecture 16: 28 April 1965, which just says 'Missing to be corrected'

Seminar 13: Object of Psychoanalysis

1. Lecture(?) 11: 25 February 1966, which is titled Lacan Absent because Lacan wasn't there and directs the reader to the French transcripts to see what was discussed that day.
2. Lecture 13: 30 March 1966, the title given to which is 'Topological discussions', and there too it says that it is missing and will be shortly corrected.

I don't know for how long it has been so but if anyone has maybe an older PDF which contains a translation of these lectures then that would be very helpful.

The seminars are properly recorded from 1953 onwards with the one on Freud’s Papers on Technique.

But before that he gave two more, I think, one on Freud’s Dora case, which is available in the Ecrits in some condensed form as Intervention on Transference. However I can’t find anything about the next one on the Wolf Man case from 1951-52, is there any information about that anywhere?

Also, why was the 1951 texts “Some reflections on the ego” not added to the Ecrits? I know that Family Complexes wasn’t added simply because of the length, but this one is quite short.

Edit: Turns out there is one more from 1952-53 on the Rat Man case, about which I can’t find anything either.

I was reading this text by Darian Leader called "The Not-All", delivered at the Saint-Anne Hospital, 11 January 1993.

Available in entirety here: https://www.lacan.com/symptom17-notall.html#_ftnref2

And there was this one mention of some text by Alain Badiou on Lacan that hasn't been mentioned in the footnotes, I was wondering if someone could help me find the source:

>Clearly, in Schlick’s living room, it would have been possible to carry out this sort of enumeration, but what would one do to interpret propositions about everything in the world ? We remember, indeed, that if the russellian theory of propositional functions is accepted, the proposition ‘All the men in this room are wearing trousers’ does not take as its subject all the thinkers there present, but rather everything that there is in the whole universe. Since the proposition is interpreted as “For all possible values of x, if x is a man in this room, then x is wearing trousers.” So the initial proposition immediately transports us beyond the Schlick household and confronts us with the impossibility of enumerating all the objects in the universe. A different perspective, perhaps a happier one, involves interpreting the proposition less as an implicit enumeration than as a relation between concepts, that is, in our example, a relation between the concept “to be a man” and the concept “to wear trousers.” The idea would be to see if there is a link between the two such as implication: if so, one wouldn’t have to bother going round to examine Wittgenstein, Schlick, Carnap, etc. But this brings us back to nothing less than the linguistic problems that the appeal to logic was supposed to avoid since concepts and the thesis he is exploring. For an elegant resolution of this apparent tension, one may consult M. Badiou’s article in his recent collection of essays on precisely this point.^(2) Without going into detail here, we can say that the crucial variable is the fact that Lacan does not say that feminine jouissance is infinite, but rather that it is infinite in relation to Φx.

Would be of great help if someone can help me locate Badiou's article.

There is a footnote after this, but the articles that the footnote mentions are not the ones from Badiou but something unrelated, seems to be a mistake.

Seminar 14 just got released in April and Seminar 15 is gonna be released in October of this year too. And I found out that it has been noted that Jacques Alain Miller once again has truncated the contributions of other people present at the seminar, and other contextual happenings, from his official established text:

>"Further, it is noted that the editor, Jacques-Alain Miller has omitted the session of 31st January 1968, during which, in Lacan’s absence, his main disciples discussed the content of his teaching, and the very short one of 8th May 1968, where he expressed solidarity with the strike order launched by the National Union of Higher Education...
This omission of other’s interventions is not new. They are also missing from Seminar VII, XVII & XX and maybe others. However, they appear to be included in Seminars I, II, III, XI, & XXIII. Therefore, these omissions are not a new editorial decision, but the continuance of a tradition of reducing Jacques Lacan’s working method to a textbook."

I looked over at Cormac Gallagher's translation of the seminar to check if he had translated the 8th session (31st January 1968), but all that is noted there is:

>Jacques Lacan did not attend this “seminar”.
Among those who participated in the discussion were: C Melman, G Michaud, J Oury, P Lemoine, F Tosquelles, J Rudrauf, X Audouard, I Roublef, E Lemoine, T Abdoucheli, C Conté, J Ayme, M Noyes, L Mélèse, C Dorgeuille, F Guattari, J Nassif and others.

I could find the French transcription of this session here at page 59 of the pdf version, but I'm still unable to find any English translation of this session, which I am interested to see particularly because of Guattari's participation in it prior to his collaboration with Deleuze, also Oury's participation too.

I don't know enough French to be able to read the transcripts so I'd love if someone knows of any English translation of this session.