Rusty Existence in the Real – I

Materialism is not the direct assertion of my inclusion in objective reality (such an assertion presupposes that my position of enunciation is that of an external observer who can grasp the whole of reality); rather it resides in the reflexive twist by means of which I myself am included in the picture constituted by me — it is this reflexive short circuit, this necessary redoubling of myself as standing both outside and inside my picture, that bears witness to my “material existence.” (Parallax View 17)

Materialism exhibits what Zizekian project may intend to involve but may not want to be exposed in the Real. Talking about dialectic materialism in the situation when marxist logics has undergone serious interrogation may sound idiosyncratic. But materialism may go farther than marxist logics if we put it into the spectrum initiated by Lacan. Lacanian object opens up the access to the “object cause of desire” (Parallax View 18). Zizek is right to point out that “what is an ordinary object to you is to me the focus of my libidinal investment;” (Parallax View 18) however this objet petite a would neither be “transubstantiated” nor transformed into a Kantian “transcendental object.” For every singular subject, in contrary to Zizekian populist subjects, it seems unlikely that he will share his very private secret love to lost object within intrasubjective relations. It sounds logically and ontologically invalid for the very existence of objet petite a presupposes an individual process. This is also a relevant polemics if we have tried to find the photos of Ms. Zizek in our cyberworld. To share Zizek’s secret jouissance in a public accessible world seems inappropiate; for Zizek’s objet petite a is Zizek’s and it is neither Kant’s nor Lacan’s. Even though one tries to share it on the internet and what actually shared is not a populist cult, is still a privatized psychic reality. It is pointless to say there is transcendental objet petite a.

The substantiality of the psychoanalytic object is not relied on the minimal difference between the intrasubjective position in the parallax stance. For the minimal difference can only exhibit the infant’s play of coordination in the scenario of the Mirror Stage from which it is the subject itself entering into libidinal identification based on the imaginary reflection of his own existence in the Real with the change in partial bodily form rather than in the perspective of the subjective gaze. The pre-oedipal subjectivization is constituted from the framework of substantiality – an imago of the objectification in bodily coordination. Materialism shall be the existence of the Real “out there” which goes through the internalization of the imago and occupied the spatial preoccupation of human identification. Without this, the reflection of the imago, the identification process as well as the transaction of libidinal dynamism seems groundless.

Filed under: Lacan, Zizek, object a, the Real , imaginary order

Zizekian Twist

It is by the famous intellectual star Slavoj Zizek that parallax is the observed difference, displacement of object. The parallax [Greek: parallassein = shift] is the minimal shift in object in contrary to nano-difference in space and time of the gazing subjects. It connotes the partial blindness, the intentional and deviant swap of gaze with or without the affirmative of a unique subjectivity.

The philosophical twist ….. is not simply “subjective” due to the fact that the same object which exist “out there” is seen from two different stances or point of view. (Parallax View 17)

It seems that the Lacanian gaze is radically twisted like a mobius stripe and there is no longer a verification of the very subjectivity of the Subject, or what exist is simply but the pluralistic twist of subjectivity. If there is more than a subject or the subject itself presupposes a close approximation that could be an apparent resemblance, a friend of politics, a dialectics of twins, the nano-difference between the twos could be the impossible of distance which can only be understood as a dialectics in topological twist.

Lacanian subject presupposes a subjectivity within the clinical field of psychoanalysis which Zizek may not agree with. The intrasubjectivity within our clinical experience is unlikely a reference for us to understand Zizek: it may connote that social reflectivity within the clinical session may become equivocal as it comes to contextual and worldly environs. The pluralist twist from a clinical subject to consolidated subjects radicalizes and opens up what could be the impossible volition, violation toward a dialectical revision of Lacan’s prima. The parallax view assumes the view from partial blindness, intentional acceptance of the partial truth. It is not unusual among the Chinese, especially from those with authority or extreme authority, making approval, justification, testimonial, licensing, validation with one eye opens and one eye closes. There is parallax shift only when we act with one eye opens and one eye closes. The shift itself is preoccupied with ideological blindness that is known and accepted among the members of the environs. The Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) has a famous scene of spying over a tiny holes. It is not usual among man who enjoys the jouissance of spying over woman that one see with same eye all the time. The parallax view will never be an access to jouissance as jouissance itself comes mainly from a unique pleasure of an imaginary unique of one’s desire. The gaze itself may never be a parallax gaze.

The gaze can also be prohibited, not to go into parallax stance, if one has search “Analia Hounie” in google picture, one will find it really difficult for one to have a gaze of our Zizekian Idol.

Filed under: Gaze, Lacan, Zizek, symbolic order , Analia Hounie, Gaze, Lacan, Parallax View, Renata Salecl, Zizek