R Schema
ELI5
The R Schema is a kind of map Lacan drew to show how the three main ingredients of a person's psychological world—the symbolic (language/law), the imaginary (mirror images/ego), and the real (what can't be symbolized)—fit together, and how a father-figure's role in language is what makes ordinary reality possible.
Definition
The R Schema (Schema R) is a topological diagram Lacan developed in 1957–58, first appearing in schematic form during Seminar IV and reaching its fully elaborated version in the Écrits essay "On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis" (Écrits, p. 553). It is a quadrangle (trapezoid) that synthesizes the three registers—Symbolic, Imaginary, and Real—into a single spatial representation of neurotic subjectivity. The schema's corners are occupied by: the Subject (S/phallus), the Name-of-the-Father (P/F), the primordial maternal object (M), and the ego ideal (I); within the trapezoid, the ego (m) and imaginary other (i) define one axis, while the ego ideal (I) and primordial object (M) define a second, symbolically mediated axis. The central trapezoid enclosed by m, i, I, and M is what Lacan associates with the field of reality (the Real), which is opened up by the action of the signifier.
The R Schema is best understood as an expansion of the L Schema: whereas the L Schema maps the neurotic or analytic situation as a four-cornered figure of Subject, Other, ego, and imaginary other, the R Schema adds the paternal and phallic coordinates (P and φ) to capture the full structure of the Oedipus complex—specifically, how the paternal metaphor (Name-of-the-Father substituting for Mother's Desire) installs phallic signification and thereby constitutes the field of reality. The schema is thus the structural norm against which psychotic deformation is measured: in psychosis, the foreclosure of the Name-of-the-Father (P₀) entails a corresponding absence of phallic signification (Φ₀), and the trapezoid collapses into the parabolic "I-Schema" that maps Schreber's delusional reality. A 1966 footnote to the Écrits version reconceived the central trapezoid as a Möbius strip to situate the objet petit a as the virtual support of reality.
Evolution
The R Schema has a clear developmental arc traceable across Lacan's output of the late 1950s. Its earliest traces appear during Seminar IV (1956–57), where a thumbnail sketch in Lacan's own annotated typescript is noted, though this is not elaborated theoretically in the seminar itself (jacques-lacan-seminar-4, p. 432). By Seminar V (1957–58), a "rudimentary version" of the diagram appears, identified by editorial notes as a precursor to the fully articulated schema in the Écrits (jacques-lacan-seminar-5, p. 503). The complete formulation arrives in "On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis," composed December 1957–January 1958 and published 1959, where Lacan deploys it as the structural synthesis of his "return to Freud"—binding the imaginary triangle (a, a′, S, φ) to the symbolic triangle (I, M, P) within a single quadrangular topology (derek-hook-calum-neill-stijn-vanheule, p. 181).
By the time of Seminar XIII (1965–66, object-a period), the R Schema is explicitly listed alongside the L Schema and the Graph of Desire as successive moments in a progressive "formalization of subjective topology," all oriented toward capturing what discourse cannot directly say about its own referent (jacques-lacan-seminar-13-1, p. 253). In a 1966 footnote added for the publication of the Écrits, Lacan himself revises the schema by reconceiving the central trapezoid as a Möbius strip, relocating the objet petit a as the virtual support of reality and the divided subject at the center of the diagram (derek-hook-calum-neill-stijn-vanheule, p. 186). This revision marks the transition from the schema's original role as a map of the paternal metaphor to its later function as a site for working out the topology of the real and the object a.
In the secondary literature, Boothby (richard-boothby, pp. 268–278) engages the R Schema most extensively, aligning it with Gestalt figure/ground theory and arguing that it is topologically superior to Schema L for capturing the full dynamics of the Oedipus complex and the constitution of reality. For Boothby, the central trapezoid "pulses open" under the influence of the signifier, separating the imaginary and symbolic axes—a reading that productively extends the diagram beyond its original clinical context into a general metapsychology of the real and the objet a. The Seminar XIII commentators (jacques-lacan-seminar-13, p. 28) use the R Schema specifically to track the objet a across the two poles of the quadrangle—toward the object (mother) and toward the ideal—emphasizing its role as mediation between subject and Other.
Key formulations
Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' (p.166)
Based on two schemas (the L-schema and the R-schema) Lacan makes clear how the relation to the Other should best be conceptualized.
Establishes the R-schema's paired, structural function alongside the L-schema in Lacan's most important paper on psychosis—framing both schemas as complementary topological tools for theorizing the subject's relation to the Other.
Seminar XIII · The Object of Psychoanalysis (p.28)
There then comes the quadrangle called the schema R. Here again there are opposed the couple of tensions between the systems of desires (iM) and the system of identifications (eI).
Provides the most concise structural description of the R Schema as a quadrangle organizing two axes—desire (toward the object/mother) and identification (toward the ego ideal)—and situating the objet a along each.
Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' (p.193)
Note that the I-schema is constructed out of the R-schema: the corners P, which represents the paternal law, and φ, which represents the creation of phallic identifications as a result of adopting the paternal signifier, are absent.
Identifies the R Schema as the structural baseline or norm for neurosis, from which the I Schema (psychosis) is derived by subtracting the paternal and phallic corners—making explicit the diagnostic and comparative function of the diagram.
Freud as Philosopher: Metapsychology After Lacan (p.270)
Plotted onto the basic frame of the Schema R, this movement of differentiation separates two planes or axes, the properly imaginary plane of the figure that links the imaginary ego and its specular other (m and i) and a symbolically mediated plane stretching between the ego ideal and the locus of the primitive object, the Thing (I and M).
Boothby's key interpretive move: the R Schema is read as a dynamic topology in which the symbolic action of castration 'opens up' the real by separating two distinct planes, revealing the schema's metapsychological import beyond its clinical origins.
Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' (p.186)
In 1966, as his Écrits were published Lacan added an interesting footnote to the R-schema, where he wonders how the object a might be situated relative to the coordinates of reality
Documents Lacan's own 1966 revision of the schema, reconceiving its central trapezoid as a Möbius strip to incorporate the objet petit a—marking the schema's evolution from a map of the paternal metaphor to a topology of the real.
Cited examples
Schreber's psychosis (Daniel Paul Schreber's autobiography and Freud's case study) (case_study)
Cited by Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' (p.189). Lacan uses the R Schema as a structural baseline to map Schreber's delusional reality, showing that foreclosure of the Name-of-the-Father (P₀) and absence of phallic signification (Φ₀) cause the neurotic trapezoid to collapse into the parabolic I-Schema. Schreber's transformation into 'God's phallus/wife' is read as a compensatory attempt to reconstruct reality in the absence of the paternal metaphor.
Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus ('These words are razors to my wounded heart') (literature)
Cited by Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' (p.183). This example is used to illustrate the structure of metaphor (signifier substitution), which is the linguistic mechanism underlying the paternal metaphor—the very process the R Schema is designed to formalize. The metaphoric substitution in Titus Andronicus models how a surprising signifier disrupts metonymy and induces new signification, paralleling the Name-of-the-Father's substitution for the Mother's Desire.
Tensions
Within the corpus
Whether the R Schema's central trapezoid should be understood as a static positional map or a dynamic process that 'opens up' under symbolic action.
Vanheule (in derek-hook-calum-neill-stijn-vanheule) treats the R Schema primarily as a structural diagram that synthesizes the symbolic triangle (I, M, P) and imaginary triangle (a, a′, S, φ) to represent the constitution of reality via the paternal metaphor—emphasizing its diagnostic, comparative function as the neurotic norm against the psychotic I-Schema. — cite: derek-hook-calum-neill-stijn-vanheule-reading-lacan-s-ecrits-from-the-freudian-t, p. 181
Boothby (in richard-boothby) reads the R Schema dynamically: the central trapezoid 'pulses open' under the influence of the signifier, and the schema is better understood as mapping a temporal movement of differentiation (symbolic castration) that separates imaginary from symbolically mediated axes—aligning it with Gestalt figure/ground dynamics and the function of the objet a. — cite: richard-boothby-freud-as-philosopher-metapsychology-after-lacan-routledge-2001, p. 270
This tension bears on whether the R Schema is fundamentally a synchronic topology of structure or a diachronic model of subjective constitution.
Across frameworks
vs Ego Psychology
Lacanian: For Lacan, the R Schema shows that 'reality' is not a pre-given external world to which the ego adapts, but is constituted through the action of the paternal signifier (Name-of-the-Father) on the field spanned by imaginary and symbolic axes. The central trapezoid is opened by the signifier, meaning reality is always already symbolically structured and fundamentally shaped by lack.
Ego Psychology: Ego psychology (Hartmann, Kris, Loewenstein) posits a conflict-free ego sphere capable of autonomous adaptation to reality. Reality testing is a function of the reality-oriented ego, which progressively differentiates self from world through autonomous development. The ego's adaptive capacities are taken as the therapeutic benchmark.
Fault line: Lacan sees the constitution of reality as dependent on the structural intervention of the paternal signifier and irreducibly marked by lack; ego psychology treats reality as a stable external domain to which a healthy ego adapts, bypassing the constitutive role of language and the Other altogether.
vs Object Oriented Ontology
Lacanian: The R Schema situates the 'real' as a zone produced by the tension between symbolic and imaginary registers—it is not the direct presence of things-in-themselves but a structural effect of signifying operations. The objet petit a, lodged in the trapezoid, is not a real object but the void around which desire circulates.
Object Oriented Ontology: Object-Oriented Ontology (Harman, Morton) insists on the autonomous reality of objects withdrawn from any relational or linguistic mediation. Objects are not constituted by discourse or the subject's structural position; they withdraw from all access, including symbolic access, and have genuine being independent of human frameworks.
Fault line: Lacan's R Schema makes the 'real' a structural artifact of the subject's symbolic constitution, whereas OOO insists that the real (as object-being) is radically independent of any subjective or linguistic framing—the two positions cannot be reconciled on the ontological status of the real.
vs Humanistic Self Actualization
Lacanian: The R Schema shows that the subject is constituted by the Other's discourse and is fundamentally divided (barred); there is no pre-given authentic self to actualize. The paternal metaphor installs a structural lack that is the permanent condition of desire, not an obstacle to be overcome.
Humanistic Self Actualization: Humanistic psychology (Maslow, Rogers) posits an inherent tendency toward self-actualization in each person. Psychological health consists of realizing one's authentic potential, and the therapeutic task is to remove obstacles (such as conditions of worth) that block this natural growth trajectory.
Fault line: Lacan's schema grounds subjectivity in constitutive lack and the alienating structure of language, making any notion of an autonomous, self-present subject to be actualized a fundamental misrecognition; humanistic approaches presuppose exactly the kind of integrated, full subject that Lacanian theory argues is structurally impossible.
All occurrences
Where it appears in the corpus (19)
-
#01
Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' · Derek Hook, Calum Neill & Stijn Vanheule (eds.) · p.166
[On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis](#ch05.xhtml_tocbook-part-007) > Context
Theoretical move: This passage provides a contextual and structural overview of Lacan's 'On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis,' arguing that the text marks a pivotal shift in Lacan's theorization of psychosis as a unitary clinical structure grounded in the foreclosure of the Name-of-the-Father, situated within a four-period developmental arc in Lacan's broader work on psychosis.
Based on two schemas (the L-schema and the R-schema) Lacan makes clear how the relation to the Other should best be conceptualized.
-
#02
Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' · Derek Hook, Calum Neill & Stijn Vanheule (eds.) · p.181
[On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis](#ch05.xhtml_tocbook-part-007) > III. With Freud
Theoretical move: The passage argues that Lacan's 'return to Freud' culminates in a formal, symbolic account of the unconscious as the Other's discourse, articulated through the L-schema and R-schema, which positions subjectivity as constituted by signifiers at the level of the Other rather than by imaginary ego-dynamics—thereby decisively separating psychoanalysis from both Cartesian consciousness-philosophy and Jungian imaginary interpretation.
In subsection 6 Lacan starts by specifying that a, a′ and S make up an imaginary triangle... In the R-schema Lacan synthesizes key ideas of the 'With Freud' section.
-
#03
Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' · Derek Hook, Calum Neill & Stijn Vanheule (eds.) · p.186
[On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis](#ch05.xhtml_tocbook-part-007) > III. With Freud
Theoretical move: The passage demonstrates how Lacan's formula of metaphor, applied to the Oedipus complex as the paternal metaphor, structures subjective identity through the substitution of the Name-of-the-Father for the Mother's Desire, while the R-schema (reconceived as a Möbius strip) situates the objet petit a as the virtual support of reality in neurosis versus its chaotic real manifestation in psychosis.
In 1966, as his Écrits were published Lacan added an interesting footnote to the R-schema, where he wonders how the object a might be situated relative to the coordinates of reality
-
#04
Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' · Derek Hook, Calum Neill & Stijn Vanheule (eds.) · p.189
[On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis](#ch05.xhtml_tocbook-part-007) > IV. Schreber’s way
Theoretical move: The passage argues that Schreber's psychosis is structurally determined by the foreclosure of the Name-of-the-Father, which produces a cascade of effects—absence of phallic signification, invasion of the Real by hallucinatory voices and gazes (object a), and compensatory metonymic 'forced thought'—all of which Lacan formalizes through the R-schema and the I-schema as an alternative symbolic architecture to neurotic repression.
he specifically examines the organization of Schreber's delusion by concentrating on the concepts articulated by means of the R-schema... In subsection 5, Lacan discusses how Schreber's position in the symbolic might be thought of in terms of the R-schema (470, 4). This will result in a new schema: the 'I-schema'
-
#05
Reading Lacan's Écrits: From 'The Freudian Thing' to 'Remarks on Daniel Lagache' · Derek Hook, Calum Neill & Stijn Vanheule (eds.) · p.193
[On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis](#ch05.xhtml_tocbook-part-007) > IV. Schreber’s way
Theoretical move: The passage traces Lacan's reading of Schreber's psychosis through the I-schema, arguing that foreclosure of the Name-of-the-Father produces a parabolic, delusional reality in which Schreber reconstructs subjectivity by occupying the position of God's phallus/wife—a process structured by the interplay of foreclosure, imaginary regression to the mirror stage, and the absence of fundamental fantasy.
Note that the I-schema is constructed out of the R-schema: the corners P, which represents the paternal law, and φ, which represents the creation of phallic identifications as a result of adopting the paternal signifier, are absent.
-
#06
An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis · Dylan Evans
<span id="9781134780112_Part11.xhtml_ncx_9"></span><span id="9781134780112_Part11.xhtml_page_0025"></span>***A*** > <span id="9781134780112_Part11.xhtml_ncx_16"></span>**algebra**
Theoretical move: Lacan's algebraic formalisation of psychoanalysis is theoretically motivated by three interlinked aims: scientific legitimacy, integral transmission of psychoanalytic knowledge, and the prevention of imaginary (intuitive) understanding in favour of symbolic manipulation — the mathemes and associated symbols thus function as epistemic and pedagogical devices, not mere notation.
*i* = the specular image (schema R) I = the ego-ideal (schema R) *S* = the symbolic order (schema R) *R* = the field of reality (schema R) *I* = the imaginary order (schema R)
-
#07
An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis · Dylan Evans
<span id="9781134780112_Part29.xhtml_ncx_173"></span><span id="9781134780112_Part29.xhtml_page_0195"></span>***S*** > <span id="9781134780112_Part29.xhtml_ncx_176"></span>**Schema L**
Theoretical move: Schema L is Lacan's first and most sustained diagrammatic formalization of psychoanalytic structure, demonstrating that the symbolic relation between the Other and the subject is always partially blocked by the imaginary axis, while also representing the decentered subject stretched across four structural loci; it is positioned as the originary quaternary from which all subsequent schemata derive, and as the precursor to Lacan's mature topological work.
In addition to schema L there are several other schemata that appear in Lacan's work (schema R—see E, 197; schema I—see E, 212; the two schemata of Sade—see Ec, 774 and Ec, 778). All of these schemata are transformations of the basic quaternary of schema L.
-
#08
Seminar XIII · The Object of Psychoanalysis (alt. translation) · Jacques Lacan · p.253
**Seminar 21: Wednesday 8 June 1966**
Theoretical move: Lacan argues that topology is not an optional supplement to psychoanalytic formation but its very substance — the 'stuff into which the analyst cuts' — and uses the mathematician's disclosure that mathematical discourse conceals its own referent to illuminate the structural parallel with the psychoanalyst's position, where the unconscious (Urverdrangung) prevents any direct saying of what is spoken about; jouissance, caught in the net of language/the signifier, is identified as the hidden dimension that grounds desire and that only topology can begin to approach.
these orientated networks that are called successively Schema L or Schema R or the Graph
-
#09
Seminar XIII · The Object of Psychoanalysis (alt. translation) · Jacques Lacan · p.28
I - JACQUES LACAN"S OBJECT: A RAPID REMINDER
Theoretical move: The passage traces the theoretical development of the o-object (objet petit a) through Lacan's earliest graphs, arguing that (o) functions as the indispensable mediation between Subject and Other (via the Mirror Stage) and between Subject and Ego Ideal (via Schema R), while the Symbolic field alone provides the third term—the Name of the Father—that structures the whole process, inaccessible by any direct route.
There then comes the quadrangle called the schema R. Here again there are opposed the couple of tensions between the systems of desires (iM) and the system of identifications (eI).
-
#10
Seminar XIII · The Object of Psychoanalysis (alt. translation) · Jacques Lacan · p.264
**Seminar 21: Wednesday 8 June 1966**
Theoretical move: Lacan argues that topology is not an optional supplement to psychoanalytic training but its very operative 'stuff' — the medium in which the analyst cuts the subject — and uses the mathematician's structural concealment of his object as a foil to show that the analyst's non-saying differs because an irreducible unconscious (Urverdrängung) prevents knowledge, while jouissance, caught in the net of language as sexual jouissance, is the hidden ground that desire defends against, pointing toward the death drive as the only genuine philosophical question.
it is not today or yesterday, of course, that I tried to form this construction, these networks, these written indicators, these orientated networks that are called successively Schema L or Schema R or the Graph
-
#11
Seminar XIII · The Object of Psychoanalysis · Jacques Lacan · p.253
**Seminar 21: Wednesday 8 June 1966**
Theoretical move: Lacan argues that topology is not an optional supplement for the psychoanalyst but the very material into which the psychoanalytic operation cuts, and that jouissance—placed on the hither side of the big Other and caught in the net of subjective topology as sexual jouissance—is the irreducible, unsayable dimension that language/desire both defends against and compels us to question, linking the emergence of the signifier to the individual's relation to jouissance via Freud's death drive.
these orientated networks that are called successively Schema L or Schema R or the Graph
-
#12
Seminar XIII · The Object of Psychoanalysis · Jacques Lacan · p.28
I - JACQUES LACAN"S OBJECT: A RAPID REMINDER
Theoretical move: The passage traces the theoretical evolution of the o-object (objet petit a) through Lacan's earliest graphs—from the Mirror Stage to the L Schema and Schema R—arguing that (o) functions as the indispensable mediation between the subject and the Other, and between the subject and the ego ideal, while the symbolic field alone provides the third term (Name of the Father) that structures the whole process.
There then comes the quadrangle called the schema R. Here again there are opposed the couple of tensions between the systems of desires (iM) and the system of identifications (eI).
-
#13
Seminar XIII · The Object of Psychoanalysis · Jacques Lacan · p.264
**Seminar 21: Wednesday 8 June 1966**
Theoretical move: Lacan argues that topology is not an optional supplement to psychoanalytic training but its very operative material, and uses the structural parallel between mathematical discourse (which speaks what it cannot name) and psychoanalytic discourse (which cannot name what it speaks about due to the irreducible unconscious) to re-ground the function of language, desire, and jouissance as the hidden field from which the subject withdraws its object.
these orientated networks that are called successively Schema L or Schema R or the Graph
-
#14
Seminar IV · The Object Relation · Jacques Lacan · p.432
FAREWELL > AUSTRIA-HUNGARY > Translator's Notes
Theoretical move: This passage consists entirely of translator's and editorial notes for Seminar IV, providing bibliographic clarifications, attestation checks against typescripts, and cross-references to Écrits and Freud; it contains no substantive theoretical moves.
on the left, a schematic version of the 'R schema' (developed in January 1958 and featuring in its fully expanded form in Ecrits, op. cit., p. 553
-
#15
Seminar V · Formations of the Unconscious · Jacques Lacan · p.503
**EXPLANATION OF THESCHEMAS** > Chapter X The Three Moments of the Oedipus Complex (I)
Theoretical move: This passage is a scholarly apparatus (editorial footnotes and bibliographic references) for Seminar V, providing source citations, translations, and cross-references for chapters X–XVI. It is non-substantive theoretical content.
This diagram is a rudimentary version of the R Schema set out in Lacan, 'Question', Ecrits, p. 462.
-
#16
Freud as Philosopher: Metapsychology After Lacan · Richard Boothby · p.270
<span class="chnum ordinal">Chapter 5 </span><span id="ch5.xhtml_p241" class="pagebreak" aria-label=" page 241. " role="doc-pagebreak"></span>Figurations of the *Objet a* > Why One and One Make Four
Theoretical move: By mapping gestalt concepts (figure/ground) onto the Schema R and contrasting it with Schema L, Boothby argues that symbolic castration is the process of "demotivation" that opens the real between the imaginary axis (m-i) and the symbolically mediated axis (I-M), distinguishing the fuller picture of the Oedipus complex from the neurotic, analytic situation mapped by Schema L.
Plotted onto the basic frame of the Schema R, this movement of differentiation separates two planes or axes, the properly imaginary plane of the figure that links the imaginary ego and its specular other (m and i) and a symbolically mediated plane stretching between the ego ideal and the locus of the primitive object, the Thing (I and M).
-
#17
Freud as Philosopher: Metapsychology After Lacan · Richard Boothby · p.278
<span class="chnum ordinal">Chapter 5 </span><span id="ch5.xhtml_p241" class="pagebreak" aria-label=" page 241. " role="doc-pagebreak"></span>Figurations of the *Objet a* > How the Real World Became a Phantasy
Theoretical move: The passage argues that the objet a is the structural condition of both love and reality-testing: it is the paradoxical lost object that simultaneously grounds erotic desire (as what the beloved signifies but does not possess) and the sense of reality (as the constitutive lack that prevents absolute certainty), thereby recasting the Freudian reality principle in genuinely radical terms against ego-psychological adaptation models.
We have returned repeatedly to the importance of the central trapezoid of Schema R, the zone Lacan associates with the real.
-
#18
Freud as Philosopher: Metapsychology After Lacan · Richard Boothby
<span id="Index.xhtml_p323" class="pagebreak" aria-label=" page 323. " role="doc-pagebreak"></span>Index
Theoretical move: This is a back-of-book index from Boothby's "Freud as Philosopher: Metapsychology after Lacan" (2001), listing concepts and page references from S through V. It is a navigational aid and contains no substantive theoretical argument.
Schema R (Lacan's) 262, 268, 270–72, 274, 278
-
#19
Freud as Philosopher: Metapsychology After Lacan · Richard Boothby · p.268
<span class="chnum ordinal">Chapter 5 </span><span id="ch5.xhtml_p241" class="pagebreak" aria-label=" page 241. " role="doc-pagebreak"></span>Figurations of the *Objet a* > Why One and One Make Four
Theoretical move: By mapping the *objet a* across Schema L, Schema R, the Gestalt figure/ground distinction, and the Greimasian semiotic square, Boothby argues that the *objet a* is not a positional object but an "objectality" function that emerges from the structural tension between das Ding (maternal) and the paternal Law (symbolic order), a tension whose topology is best captured by Schema R rather than Schema L.
It can, however, be aligned with another of Lacan's basic schemata: the so-called Schema R. Lacan first develops this schema in his discussion of the Schreber case.