• Not "applying" a theory, but allowing practice to test theory, letting the two enter into a dialectical relationship.
• The semiotic process relates to the chora, a term meaning "receptacle," which she borrowed from Plato, who describes it as "an invisible and formless being which receives all things and in some mysterious way partakes of the intelligi- ble, and is most incomprehensible."11 It is also anterior to any space, an economy of primary processes articulated by Freud's instinctual drives (Triebe) through condensation and displacement, and where social and family structures make their imprint through the mediation of the maternal body. While the chora's articulation is uncertain, undetermined, while it lacks thesis or position, unity or identity, it is the aim of Kris- teva's practice to remove what Plato saw as "mysterious" and "incomprehensible" in what he called "mother and receptacle" of aIl things-and the essays presented in this collection also proceed in the direction of such an elucidation.
• The symbolic process refers to the establishment of sign and syntac, paternal function, grammatical and social process, as increasingly manifest in language," results from a particular articulation between symbolic and semiotic dispositions; it could be termed "catastrophe," given the the word has in Rene Thom's theory
• The speaking subject is as belonging to both the semiotic chora and the symbolic device, and that accounts for its eventual split nature.
• The signifying process may be analyzed through two features of the text, as constituted by poetic language: a phenotext, which is the lan- guage of communication and has been the object of linguistic analysis; a genotext, which may be detected by means of certain aspects or elements of language, even though it is not linguistic per se.
• the "Other" refers to a hypothetical place or space, that of the pure signifier, rather than to a physical entity or moral cate- gory. Lacan: "The unconscious of the subject is the discourse of the other" versus "The Other is, therefore, the place in which is constituted the I who speaks with him who hears."
• 1
• Ethics used to be a coercive, customary manner of ensuring the cohesiveness of a particular group through the repetition of a code-a more or less accepted apologue. Now, however, the issue of ethics crops up wherever a code (mores, social contract) must be shattered in order to give way to the free play of negativity, need, desire, pleasure, and jouissance, before being put together again, although temporarily and with fuH knowledge of what is involved.
• No longer will it be possible to read any treatise on phonology without deeiphering within every phoneme the statement ‘here lies a poet."
• Poetic discourse measures rhythm against the meaning of language structure and is thus always eluded by meaning in the present while con- tinually postponing it to an impossible time-to-come
• 2
• Rather than a discourse, contemporary semiotics takes as its object several semiotie practices which it considers as translinguistic; that is, they operate through and across language, while remaining irreducible to its categories as they are presently assigned.
• In this perspective,(the text is defined as a trans-linguistic apparatus that redistributes the order of language by relating communicative speech, which aims to inform directly, to different kinds of anterior or synchronic utterances., The te)(tis therefore a productivity, and this means: first, that its relationship to the language in which it is situated is redistributive (destructive-constructive), and hence can be better approached through logical categories rather than linguistic ones; and second, that it is apermutation of texts, an intertextuality: in the space of a given text, several utterances, taken [rom other texts, intersect and neu- tralize one another.
• Bakhtin’s “literary word” as an intersection of textual surfaces rather than a point (a fixed meaning), as a dialogue among several writings: that of the writer, the addressee (or the character), and the contemporary or earlier cultural context
• Menippean discourse is both comic and tragic, or rather, it is serious in the same sense as is the carnivalesque
• Linguistic units and structures no longer determine writing, since it is not only or not specifically discourse directed at someone else. Displacements and facilitations of energy, discharges, and quantitative cathexes that are logically anterior to linguistic entities and to their subject mark the constitution and the movements of the "self," and are manifested by the formulation of symbolic-linguistic order.2 Writing would be the recording, through symbolic order, of this dialectic of displacement, facilitation, discharge, cathexis of drives (the most characteristic of which is the death drive) that operates-constitutes the signifier but also exceeds it; adds itself to the linear order of language by using the most fundamental laws of the signifying process (displacement, condensation, repetition, inversion); has other supplementary networks at its disposal; and produces a sur-meaning.
• [On Beckett’s corpus] It includes everything: a father's death and the arrival of a child (First Love), and at the other end, a theme of orality stripped of its ostenta- tion-the mouth of a lonely woman, face to face with God, face to face with nothing (Not 1).
• Racked between the father (cadaverous body, arousing to the point of defecation) and Death (empty axis, stirring to the point of trancendence), a man has a hard time finding something else to love. ********
• The Maternal Body: Cells fuse, split, and proliferate; volumes grow, tissues stretch, and body fluids change rhythm, speeding up or slowing down. Within the body, growing as a graft, indomitable, there is an other. And no one is present, within that simultaneously dual and alien space, to signify what is going on. ‘It happens, but I'm not there." "I cannot realize it, but it goes on." Motherhood's impossible syllogism
• This becoming-a-mother, this gestation, can possibly be accounted for by means of only two discourses. There is science; but as an objective dis- course, science is not concerned with the subject, the mother as site of her proceedings. There is Christian theology (especially canonical theology); but theology defines maternity only as an impossible elsewhere, a sacred beyond, a vessel of divinity, a spiritual tie with the in- effable godhead, and transcendence's ultimate support-necessarily virginal and committed to assumption. *****
• if we suppose her [a mother] to be master of a process that is prior to the social-symbolic-linguistic contract of the group, then we acknowledge the risk of losing identity at the same time as we ward it off.
• This move, however, also reveals, better than any mother ever could, that the maternal body is the place of a splitting, which, even though hypostatized by Christianity, nonetheless remains a constant factor of social reality. Through a body, destined to insure reproduction of the species, the woman-subject, although under the sway of the paternal function (as symbolizing, speaking subject and like all others), more of a filter than anyone else-a thoroughfare, a threshold where "nature" confronts "culture." To imagine that there is someone in that filter-such is the source of religious mystifications, the font that nourishes them: the fantasy of the so-called "Phallic" Mother. Because if, on the contrary, there were no one on this threshold, if the mother were not, that is, if she were not phallic, then every speaker would be led " to conceive of its Being in relation to some void, a nothingness asymetrically opposed to this Being, a permanent threat against, first, its mastery, and ultimately, its stability. BITCHHHH****
• And yet, through and with this desire, motherhood seems to be impelled also by a nonsymbolic, nonpaternal causality.
• Such an excursion to the limits of primal regression can be phantasmatically experienced as the reunion of a woman-mother with the body of her mother