Sachara Lacanian Psychoanalysis

Icon

theoretical psychoanalysis weblog for asia

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 ,

Object of Psychoanalysis

The object of psychoanalysis is no other than what I have already proposed about the function played in analysis by object a. Is knowledge of object a thus the science of psychoanalysis?This is precisely the equation that must be avoided, since object a must be inserted, as we already know, into the division of the subject by which the psychoanalytic field is quite specifically structured — this is the point with which I resumed my seminar today. This is why it is was important to promote firstly, and as a fact to be distinguished from the question of knowing whether psychoanalysis is a science (that is, whether its field is scientific), the fact that its praxis implies no other subject than that of science. (“Science & Truth” in Ecrits)

Object a denotes the residual of symbolization through which the object a, as the reflective externality of inner most psychic reality splitting up into fragmentation, achieves its undeniable status in the psychoanalysis. It is the only that is created out of the symbolic order but exists in the realm of the Real. The real is the unspeakable, the realm that language can not pass through. It is also the case with the object a which is not a signifier or no longer at all. It is the only possible substance that is created out of symbolization. Similar to what cosmological black hole it can be, the internal tension of the object a is created out of the extensive reaction of symbolization. It is the residual of the signification, but in the meantime it is no longer within the realm of symbolic. As in the black hole, one says there is distortion of substance, speed or even time. The internal power to absorbing substance makes existence beyond it impossible. Object a is an agent already beyond the usual practice of understanding. It may have no meaning (as it is the residual) but it also in the same time the only substantial agent that have retained the trace of symbolization. The archic trace of sign that is exactly what Derrida mentioned in the scenario of the “Mythic Writing Pad.”
Object a is the only possible evidence of psychoanalysis as science. It is the Virgin Mary of existence that the holiness of the highest existence (i.e. language as God is existed) has passed through her body and makes her the only possible existence that evidence the very action of holy experience. The language operation again the object a is similar to the said holy action. It offers the prestigious status to the object a and makes it the key for understanding of psychoanalysis as science. That is the experience that even the son of man does not have, even though he is always regarded as immortal.

Filed under: object a, symbolic order, the Real , , , , , , , ,

Jouissance in subversion

The intrusion into politics can only be made by recognising that there is discourse, and not just the analytic discourse, only of jouissance, at least when one hopes for the work of truth from it. The characterisation of the discourse of the master as comprising a hidden truth does not mean that this discourse is hidden…..this mean that there is something that is compressed, that is like a superimposition, something that needs to be unfolded in order to legible. It is clean that its truth is hidden from it, and a certain Hegel articulated that it is delivered to him through the work of the slave. Only there you have it, it is a discourse of the master…..which rests on the substitution of the State for the master through the long pathway of culture, in order to end up at absolute knowledge. (Lacan, Seminar XVII Chapter 5)

In the field of politics, there is no such a thing as absolute knowledge while the only possible position is the position of the master. It is the discourse of the master which bridges the inconsistent, incoherent flow  from imaginary (libido force to dominate) to the Real. The master signifier demands, regulates and tries every possible rhetorical mechanism to defend its own validity. But it is clear, as Lacan points out, paradoxically that the validity of the master is unfold only through the work of the slave. The suppression of the slave will call out the truth of the master and let him out of his own compressed self knowledge. The position of the master is void itself; its emptiness is realized by his very impossibility to access to absolute knowledge which the acting out the the slave does help to revitalize its very existence. It is through the discontent of the slave and only through which that the discourse of master is delivered and made relevant. The pain of the slave illustrates the master’s jouissance registered in the Real. It is by the pathway of the master’s discourse that the imaginary of the master can access to the Real (painful existence of the slave) in a controllable manner.

In the election that activates the participation of the ex-chief secretary Anson Chan joining the run in Hong Kong. The master’s discourse of universal suffrage makes it possible for her imaginary (libido for power) access the Real (control and monitoring within the system). Of course, every participants enjoy the same logic of jouissance; although it is the subversion of jouissance that arouses the interest of Anson Chan’s counterpart, Regina Ip, even though she also claimed to support universal suffrage as well.

Even though the master has tried to arouse the popular attention, but without the acting out of a slave, the hidden and compressed truth of the master will never be uncovered. This is unaware even in the level of the master herself.

Filed under: symbolic order, the Real , , , , , , , ,