« Last time I said that jouissance of the Other is not the sign of love. And here I am saying that love is a sign Does love consist in the fact that what appears is but the sign? It is here that the port-Royal logic, evoked the other day in François Recanati’s exposé, could lend us a hand. That logic proposes that the sign—and one always marvels at such statements(dires) that to take on weight sometimes long after being pronounced—is what is defined by the disjunction of two substances that have no part in common, namely, by what we nowadays call intersection. That will lead us tome some answers a bit later. What is not a sign of love is jouissance of the Other, jouissance of the Other sex and, as I said, of the body that symbolizes it. A change of discourses—things budge, things traverse you, things traverse us, things are traversed (ça se traverse), and no one notices the change (personne n’accuse le coup). I can say until I’m blue in the face that the notion of discourse should be taken as a social link (lien social), founded on language, and thus seems not unrelated to what is specified in linguistics as grammar, and yet nothing seems to change. « —JL
