Dear Penny, I find what you have written to ask a fundamental question about the spaces that come to occupy (and serve as the support for) the subject /as such/: what is this field that both shapes and is shaped by the subject? What does this relation between S1 and S2 tell us about the way in which this space functions? Most pertinently--what does the space of S2 look like without the imposition of a vector? I cannot help but put forward that the /projective plane/ is the very space that might help us to understand these questions. Despite Lacan's return to cross-caps and other immersion structures (Boy's surface, for instance), the projective plane remains the most versatile location upon which to reason on the subject. Perhaps when taken as a space with no vector--whether phallic or otherwise--we could assert that its constitution is essentially temporal... it is an interesting question of formalization: if /topology is time/, then by what metric does this temporality proceed? It seems to me that the projective plane has just as much versatility of representation without the hassle of the immersion artifacts adding unnecessary complications. Maybe we could start there? Many thanks for your provocative exploration of this constellation, Quinn On 7/1/26 2:14 PM, Penny Georgiou via Topologos wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Some thought-questions...were occurring to me today regarding
* S1, S2, * the 'mechanism of foreclosure', * language as infrastructure for embodiment, * also how the subject takes up the 'utterance of the Other' and calls upon what they have access to by way of S2 for 'staging', improvising an embodied experiential reality - as Shakespeare's text may be interpreted for physical theatre, as distinct from literary criticism. * bearing in mind an idea of a triggering as happening in an encounter with the Other's jouissance;
S1, -from non-locality-precondition for installing a topos(-logy), place - (non-rigid structure); S2 - geometry - as metric, ratio/phi, with singular orders of magnitude (rigid structure), access to some stabilising coordinates/parametres for holding subjective space time, necessary for embodiment as presence-parousia;
When S1 is signifying nothing, ie, not articulating to an S2, there is a hiatus to the means of instantiation - entering time, as duration; place as locality, space as field; embodiment and breath.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 at 07:47, Jacques B. Siboni via Topologos <topologos@lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear friends and colleagues,
We're happy to present to you the last session of our workshop. It is dedicated to the topologies of the object. It's the first of probably 3 sessions due to the number of chapters to treat.
On this lecture we've been through the first 4 chapters:
1— Freud and the letter 52 to Fliess 2— Object of Reality vs. object of desire 3— Neurotic and psychotic symptoms 4— Writing Freud using Lacan andVappereauformalism
This lecture can be accessed on #70 Topologies of the Object #1 <https://www.lutecium.org/2026/06/first-source-workshop-on-topological-clinics-70-topologies-of-the-object-1/12598> and directly on YouTube: https://youtu.be/mkaPInhXTn8
Thanks for your comments
Jacques
-- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the "Topologos" mailing list, which now combines the former "lutecium-group" and "topologos-workshop" lists. Topologos mailing list -- topologos@lutecium.org To unsubscribe send an email to topologos-leave@lutecium.org
-- Lutecium Collective <https://www.lutecium.org> Association Lacanienne Internationale <https://www.freud-lacan.com> quinnfoerch.com <https://quinnfoerch.com>