But according to homology, the gravity center of capitalism is like the gravity center of psychoanalysis (in French: mon homologue). Maybe these do not look like they are the same thing, but it’s the same Archimedean field, what in Lacan is called, as we shall see, the field of discourse. Which entails that in “homology,” Lacan interprets homo- more as “same” than as “similar.”
There is also Euclid, Elements, book V, definition 11: “The term corresponding magnitudes is used of antecedents in relation to antecedents, and of consequents in relation to consequents.” Between two systems of magnitudes, there is a bi-univocity between the ordered elements of the former and the ordered elements of the latter.
Euclid, Elements, book VI, statement 20: “Similar polygons are divided into similar triangles, and into triangles equal in multitude and in the same ratio as the wholes, and the polygon has to the polygon a ratio duplicate of that which the corresponding side has to the corresponding side.” It seems here that in the first case, homologos refers to a proportion, and in the second, to a one-to-one correspondence.
The analogy to be avoided is thus the analogy by which one would say that plus-de-jouir is to jouissance, or to the signifier, or to the subject, what surplus value is to commodities, or to production or to labor. Why? Because that results, to take up Saint Thomas’s aforementioned expression, in two different domains between equivocation (of the signifier) and univocity (of being)? Or rather must we go, as Lacan sometimes says, as far as univocity (what he calls “the same thing”)—but which one?