Guest guest Posted September 25, 2004 Report Share Posted September 25, 2004 We only come to know ourselves as a self, as an independent entity distinct from others and the world, through language and other systems of representation. But because of the nature of representation and subjectivity, this self-recognition involves a series of losses, an absence or lack inscribed in the heart of subjectivity. Language precedes and determines subjectivity. Language is not a function of our identities and desires so much as our identities and desires are functions of language. Language genders our identities. This is one of our first losses: a fall from pre-gendered wholeness into sexual difference ( " it's a boy! " ). Desire, in other words, has little to do with material sexuality for Lacan; it is caught up, rather, in social structures and strictures, in the fantasy version of reality that forever dominated our lives after our entrance into language. For this reason, Lacan writes that " the unconscious is the discourse of the Other. " Even our unconscious desires are, in other words, organized by the linguistic system that Lacan terms the symbolic order or " the big Other. " In a sense, then, our desire is never properly our own, but is created through fantasies that are caught up in cultural ideologies rather than material sexuality. For this reason, according to Lacan, the command that the superego directs to the subject is, of all things, " Enjoy! " That which we may believe to be most private and rebellious (our desire) is, in fact, regulated, even commanded, by the superego. In constructing our fantasy-version of reality, we establish coordinates for our desire; we situate both ourselves and our object of desire, as well as the relation between. As Slavoj Zizek puts it, " through fantasy, we learn how to desire " (Looking Awry 6). Our desires therefore necessarily rely on lack, since fantasy, by definition, does not correspond to anything in the real. Our object of desire (what Lacan terms the " objet petit a " ) is a way for us to establish coordinates for our own desire. At the heart of desire is a misregognition of fullness where there is really nothing but a screen for our own narcissistic projections. It is that lack at the heart of desire that ensures we continue to desire. To come too close to our object of desire threatens to uncover the lack that is, in fact, necessary for our desire to persist, so that, ultimately, desire is most interested not in fully attaining the object of desire but in keeping our distance, thus allowing desire to persist [Enlightenment, Realization ?????]. Because desire is articulated through fantasy, it is driven to some extent by its own impossibility However, because the objet petit a (the object of our desire) is ultimately nothing but a screen for our own narcissistic projections, to come too close to it threatens to give us the experience precisely of the Lacanian Gaze, the realization that behind our desire is nothing but our lack: the materiality of the Real staring back at us. That lack at the heart of desire at once allows desire to persist and threatens continually to run us aground upon the underlying rock of the Real. In the register of the Imaginary, desire is what is lacking in relation to a phantasy. Best, Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2004 Report Share Posted September 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > We only come to know ourselves as a self, as an independent entity > distinct from others and the world, through language and other > systems of representation. But because of the nature of > representation and subjectivity, this self-recognition involves a > series of losses, an absence or lack inscribed in the heart of > subjectivity. > > > > Language precedes and determines subjectivity. Language is not a > function of our identities and desires so much as our identities and > desires are functions of language. > > > > Language genders our identities. This is one of our first losses: a > fall from pre-gendered wholeness into sexual difference ( " it's a > boy! " ). > > > Desire, in other words, has little to do with material sexuality for > Lacan; it is caught up, rather, in social structures and strictures, > in the fantasy version of reality that forever dominated our lives > after our entrance into language. For this reason, Lacan writes > that " the unconscious is the discourse of the Other. " Even our > unconscious desires are, in other words, organized by the linguistic > system that Lacan terms the symbolic order or " the big Other. " In a > sense, then, our desire is never properly our own, but is created > through fantasies that are caught up in cultural ideologies rather > than material sexuality. For this reason, according to Lacan, the > command that the superego directs to the subject is, of all > things, " Enjoy! " That which we may believe to be most private and > rebellious (our desire) is, in fact, regulated, even commanded, by > the superego. > > > In constructing our fantasy-version of reality, we establish > coordinates for our desire; we situate both ourselves and our object > of desire, as well as the relation between. As Slavoj Zizek puts > it, " through fantasy, we learn how to desire " (Looking Awry 6). Our > desires therefore necessarily rely on lack, since fantasy, by > definition, does not correspond to anything in the real. Our object > of desire (what Lacan terms the " objet petit a " ) is a way for us to > establish coordinates for our own desire. At the heart of desire is > a misregognition of fullness where there is really nothing but a > screen for our own narcissistic projections. It is that lack at the > heart of desire that ensures we continue to desire. To come too > close to our object of desire threatens to uncover the lack that is, > in fact, necessary for our desire to persist, so that, ultimately, > desire is most interested not in fully attaining the object of > desire but in keeping our distance, thus allowing desire to persist > [Enlightenment, Realization ?????]. Because desire is articulated > through fantasy, it is driven to some extent by its own impossibility > > > > However, because the objet petit a (the object of our desire) is > ultimately nothing but a screen for our own narcissistic > projections, to come too close to it threatens to give us the > experience precisely of the Lacanian Gaze, the realization that > behind our desire is nothing but our lack: the materiality of the > Real staring back at us. That lack at the heart of desire at once > allows desire to persist and threatens continually to run us aground > upon the underlying rock of the Real. > > > > In the register of the Imaginary, desire is what is lacking in > relation to a phantasy. > > > > Best, > Kip Almazy Hi, Kip, this is just beautiful!! and true! Well in my world! :0)) Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.