Friday, January 24, 2014

The Contract Document

If the report works to solidify the office and cement its power, the contract serves as an indicator of this power, and, in a sense, it gives a more truthful view of the office, with regards to power, than the report itself gives. We have been more critical of the report because we care more about it, and about the reporters, because the report arises at the bottom and slowly makes its way to the top, it is a mark of accomplishment for the office, while the contract arrives from the top directly at the lap of the lowly worker. But the contract is also an important document: the contract is the basis for the legitimacy of the piece of paper and the words upon it; in other words, the analysis of documents as pieces of paper with words on them begins with the analysis of the contract. Let us look at the contract and attempt to show why and how it emerged, and what its particular role is. The contract is any document which makes the relationship between the two parties a relationship of predictability; it is a stabilizing document. The office is the meeting place of the two parties to a contract, it is the point of contact between two bodies bound by the contract. Just as the report individualizes the body, because each person has to offer on his/her own to the report, the contract collectivizes the bodies, it brings the two parties together and begins the process where one subject becomes concerned of the other subject's well-being for the duration of the contract. Just as the report makes each point in the hierarchy visible to the document, the contract makes every worker visible directly to the boss. What is most important is that in today's society, the contract is the substitute of 'act of ownership': whereas previously things could be said to be 'owned,' bought and sold in acts and trades, today, things are said to be contracted out, and the owner of the service remains intact for the foreseeable future. Of course we know that the body can be contracted out, but what is most difficult to understand is that land too can be and is always contracted out, that is, land too is usually a service. It is difficult to understand this because we only think of small portions of land and how they have been bought and sold, and we believe in the power of money, such an informal and casual document that it really should not be taken seriously in the analysis of documents. But we must now venture to look at large land owners: they are not simply ready to part ways with land for gold or other substitutes. Rather, land is contracted out, a document is prepared which gives land for use for a period of time. The confusion between contract and purchase comes from the length of time: some contracts are so long, running for generations upon generations, that it seems the land has been purchased, but this is usually not the case. The reason that contracts are long is because the owner sees himself/herself as unchanging within that period of time, it is not that the land's value, productivity etc doesn't change that the contract is signed, but that the qualities within ownership don't change. The chief quality of ownership which has to be constant in order for a contract to remain is power: as soon as the boss senses that his/her power is weakening, he/she exercises whatever power is left in order to modify or terminate the contract. Getting back to the office, the contract certifies not that the lowly worker will not change, but that the leadership and authority of the office will not change. The office as a place of authority is established in the contract: the longer the contract, the more it means that the office as a place of authority will not change. The contract document, therefore has two roles: it is upheld as long as the office is a place of authority, but it is discarded as soon as the office loses its authority.  

The Report Document

A particular type of document is circulating today, making its impact felt far and wide, but strictly within the office. This document, like most documents these days, starts from the office, which is effectively a factory of and for documents. The office is a dominant mode of socializing subjects, and it manages subjects through the circulation of documents. It is the contact with the document, the document-body contact, which is all important. This document we are analyzing is known as 'the report' in general language. Its format, like the format of most documents these days, is flexible, which means that we cannot say much in the way of definition about the report. Rather, it is mostly defined for what it is supposed to do rather than what it is, that is, it is defined in terms of its objectives and goals. This is where we face a problem: the report's given objectives are to facilitate openness and accountability, and in this sense the report is supposedly something dedicated to the public sphere. When one writes a report, it is supposed to clarify one's actions for the general public; it can be accessed by the public, supposedly; it is meant for a presentation to the public. But, in actual fact, the purpose of the report is totally for the private sphere, the report's objective is to facilitate a particular type of enclosure of the office's subjects, from the lowly writer of the report to the boss who reads it. This is an enclosure/imprisonment of all the points along a hierarchy, in a sense, it is the imprisonment of the boss itself within the logic of privacy. With the printer and the computer, we have managed to create the conditions for our own perpetual imprisonment, for the stream of documents is endless...This, however, is a special type of imprisonment. It is not the imprisonment where all prisoners are equal, as in a jail. But it is a hierarchical imprisonment...Additionally, the report has been arranged in its relation to human subjects in such a way that any agency with regards to the document is purely stylistic and not substantive. This is so because the writer of the report is so lowly as to not know the exact workings of the office, so he/she offers up stylistic points for the report. At the other end, the boss is so high up and concentrated upon his/her goals as to offer the report something which cannot be accurately understood by the other workers, in other words, stylistic points only. So, we begin to see how the report is not really a document full of content that relates the office to the public sphere, but rather, it distorts the office in the eyes of the public completely. Most importantly, by implicating all the hierarchical positions of the office together, it solidifies the authority chain in the office, it makes the points in the chain visible as it passes through, and rather than serving at the opening between the public and the private sphere, it is first and foremost totally a private, official thing. But what is the private office, or, what is the difference between the private office and the public sphere? The difference is created by one other document, it is the document known as the contract. 

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Use

One likes newness. It is for this reason that we find more and more inventions, to begin with, and that we find more inventions that are being made for the hand, that is, they are small, so that one can twist and turn it, marvel at it...it never gets old. But, even when it never gets old, one realized a second quality it has: that is that it will be short lived, in the sense that in one's mind it will be replaced by something else. We will later see that this is not just because of a superficial character of the thing, but something about the new things makes one feel uncomfortable, so that it has to be quickly disposed, even if it is replaced by something else which is pretty similar...But still, we must all take a moment to really marvel at man's ability to resist change, to look at the new things, to think about it, just because it is in one's hand, and even if it is the most banal thing in the world...but it is in the hand means that it is to be looked at, considered. This is what new things are about. 

But we all know that we must come back to the use of the thing. It is this which most concerns us and occupies us. There is already a hardening of the heart. So, a proper way of handling the thing is then discovered...the phase of fooling around is gone. The thing has dials and smaller components, but what we are really talking about is a machine which expects the mobility of the whole body...the human body is itself the signal which makes the new thing work. The thing requires a certain ability to be mobile, and to be agile. It is a dance which turns on this machine...

For once, let us not focus more on the human being at the center of this episode. Rather, let us take a look at the great event that takes place, which is nothing other than the machine, the new thing, coming to life. It is a glorious process to say the least. It begins with the movement in which the thing slips away from our minds, and high up in the sky it comes alive. And from up there in the sky it pokes holes in our body, which effectively makes our body immobile. And what we do is sit here and be witnesses. So we are to pause, the machine does its work, and we begin to think that we have put it to use. After the moment when the machine eludes us and springs to the sky to display itself in all its glory, there is the blinding light and sound that comes from it. The machine, in a sense, takes a life, it becomes more than machine, it is more than machine, it is like a human thing, it is not to be contained within this universe, it wants to be free.

And as we are witnessing all this--the machine in the sky with its light and sound--we begin to get away from utility, a utility as it applied to this machine is short lived for us. Rather, we begin to realize that we are to only witness this machine, for, at this moment that the machine has raised itself to the sky, and has begun to emit lights and sounds, we realize a new feeling, that one called 'danger.' We cannot be close to this machine. We do not handle it. This machine wanted more life than we ever did...

Saturday, January 18, 2014

And, Or, Not Gates: Electra in Oedipus' Theater

Psychoanalysis borrows heavily from the myth of Oedipus. In the myth, Oedipus kills his father and sleeps with his mother. First, the interpretation of these particular points from the myth is itself a psychoanalytic practice. Perhaps psychoanalysis wished to derive a sense of authority and legitimacy by being able to speak to the world of myth. However, it is now our task to complicate this relationship between psychoanalysis and Oedipus by bringing into the equation an investigation into the nature, the needs and the form of any myth. We will try to show that the Oedipal myth, and myth in general (psychoanalysis borrows heavily from many myths, not just that of Oedipus) has to be reinterpreted, not just directly in its content, but in the form that the myth is presented in. One of the main assumptions here is that the myth does not reproduce and re-present what is existent in society, but the myth is rather a pure fabrication, the content of which society later mimics.

The nuclear family in the Oedipal myth is equated with the nuclear family in the analysand's ("patient's") life. Basically, the analysand, in the Oedipal stage, identifies with Oedipus, and, like in the myth, wishes to kill his father and 'sleep' with his mother. Psychoanalysis has progressed by looking at the details of what these Oedipal wishes mean, by attempting to go into the specifics of the content of the myth. Our assertion here is that what this does is nothing more than legitimize and strengthen the role of the family in an Oedipal analysand's life. In a sense, in the psychoanalytic logic, it is through the prince's conquests that the king and queen are 'crowned' as such. The real family borrows from the mythic family and even begins to mimic it. The current interpretation of the myth of Oedipus is nothing other than the attempt on the part of capitalism to 'enclose' the family with a model. The model has been made simple (you are Oedipus, your father is the king and your mother is the queen. There, you wanted to be a part of a myth and you got it.), because, for a variety of reasons, everyone wants to be a part of the grand myth and the mythical; everyone wants to be Oedipus, despite his terrible wishes. Indeed, bringing the terrible wishes out in the open, which psychoanalysis has done, only goes to take the 'sting' out of these wishes, by making it public and therefore seem inevitable. Additionally, the attraction is not just being a part of a myth, but also of being a part of psychoanalysis, which is a dominant body of knowledge in its own right. With contact with psychoanalysis and the myth that advertises it, the family perhaps felt a form of social mobility and recognition.

Some of the following questions regarding the Oedipal myth have therefore been suspended: when and for what purpose did the mythic form emerge? What was the way that the myth was presented/exhibited? What about the myth's audience? In short, what is the way in which the population comes to face the myth? In front of all these questions, the question regarding the myth's details about the mother/queen (how does your mother feel about this? in which question the analysand becomes a 'critic' of his own show) and the father/king seem secondary. The given questions at the beginning of this paragraph add a much needed social contextualization of the myth to its analysis. 

Our main aim here is to establish a new relationship regarding the Oedipal family: this relative to the family is the individual who does not completely flee the family and neither is she completely within it, she is, rather, somewhere in between. She is at the mid-point between abandoning the family and being within it. She recognizes the family as a figment of reality, as something which has to be reckoned with and which has to be engaged with. It is a dominant institution of our times. But she also recognizes that the family is in crisis, and that it needs a new mythic form, not just content, to solve this crisis.

It is our belief that the myth began to take shape in the theater. The theater was the site where it was presented, where the myth was played out. The theater was a dominant cultural formation and practice, and it was perhaps influenced as much as anything else by political and economic interests. Although we perhaps cannot use the term working-class to look at Greek civilization, that such a class existed which had to be pacified and kept in place is a given. Indeed, in Greek civilization, we have the beginnings of the inter-play of different institutions, the management of different social units and formations, and the display of different tactics to stabilize power and dominant interests. And, we have the beginnings of the study of society. So, we will venture forth with the assertion that a particular way of presenting myth has prevailed since the Greeks which has privileged the Oedipal myth, the nuclear family, the son (Oedipus) and has many other impacts to the present day.

Let us begin to give the myth a sort of functional status. In short, let us make the myth a successful cultural event resulting from a series of functional points that perform certain processes with respect to one another. We are applying to the myths the logic gates (the AND gate, the OR gate and the NOT gate) that are prevalent in computer science and very basic computer and mathematical programming language. It is through these gates that the myth was first programmed. In the mythical theater, there is first the actors, then there is the 'Greek chorus,' and then there is audience. The actors are the OR gate, since each actor, in his/her enunciation, begins after another actor has finished his bit. There is either this actor OR that one. Then there is the NOT gate: this is the audience, it is NOT with regards to enunciation, it is never present, it doesn't act, it is NOT on stage and so on...Then there is the AND gate. This is the gate of the chorus, which enunciates in such a way that it is both this actor AND that actor, and this actor AND the audience. It is the in-between gate, it combines two elements in its expression. The myth is therefore not about the King, the Queen and the Prince, but rather, it is about the three logical gates, namely the actor (OR), the audience (NOT) and the chorus (AND). We say this in order to show how the myth performs a mathematical, functional role, and we can therefore begin to determine the success of the mythic content, particularly of the Oedipal myth, with regards to the way the three gates are contextualized.

Why have we given the different components in an Oedipal myth the status of functions? Precisely to show that the form in which the myth is presented is more important than the content of the myth. The content has been mimicked by the population, with the help of psychoanalysis, but the form is what is hidden. The form is also strong and powerful, and we hope to have shown that the myth is indeed more powerful than psychoanalysis, no matter how much psychoanalysis poses as having included the myth within its discourse. This means that psychoanalysis will itself progress beyond the Oedipal myth, but it will always have one or another myth to support it. This is so because psychoanalysis is supported by the myth in a peculiar way: the analyst poses as the chorus/AND gate, with the OR gate as the conscious and unconscious actors of the analysand (because it is always unconscious OR conscious and never both at the same time, it is either the dream or the reality, so to speak), and the NOT gate as the rest of the nuclear family. We therefore have the analyst occupying the AND gate in psychoanalysis, and generalizing the 'rest of the nuclear family' to one gate. Further, psychoanalysis attempts to distance the individual from the family, and replaces whatever feelings may have arose for the family by the feelings and actions towards the unconscious...the analysand becomes actors. There is a dominance of the OR gate, the gate of the actors, over the other two gates. To conclude, it is our belief in this paper that the nuclear family must be given two gates, both the AND and the NOT gates. In other words, the psychoanalyst must be a position/function closely involved with the family itself. This is the distanced functional position of Electra with respect to the Oedipal family.

Unlike the son, the daughter Electra cannot express herself in the family without recourse to the mythic form. But, we have not attempted to romanticize the daughter's problems because we have not provided content of a particular myth with which the daughter measures herself and her marginalized status. The problem of psychoanalysis is that the analyst comes to occupy the daughter's functional position with regards the Oedipal, nuclear family. Ultimately, what psychoanalysis and the mythic form as highlighted can and must offer is a type of knowledge for the daughter to feel free with respect to the nuclear family. As a side note, in theater, the chorus must not be completely removed, or be made simple and mechanical as it often is, the bastion of function and form, but, it must embody and reflect the relevant emotions and undercurrents of the time. In one sense, the chorus must always be present, socially relevant and analytic.


Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Fillings

It was great to feel taken aback by the sheer emptiness, the vast expanse. There was a general feeling among everyone, as demonstrated by the hum in the backdrop, that time had been harnessed, which is to say that much time had passed, which perhaps implies that we are already in a historic moment in its own right...yet nothing had changed. It was so tailor-made-for-contemplation, this emptiness, that it was about revealing an eerie feeling, a feeling that, indeed this emptiness was made for contemplation--but even before that, that it was made, and made by whom, perhaps by someone from a higher realm. In any case, there was silent contemplation before this emptiness. 

But the mind, as always, began to wander, and it is not just a day dream to which it wanders, as is often thought. But, it began to be more observant and concentrated, and it began to pick at things from the 'emptiness' before it. And the big realization dawned: this emptiness isn't empty at all, but rather, it is characterized by the removal of something of which there are marks there, and, it is then figured out, that there had been events before the emptiness, and, understanding that something came before emptiness, that it is not pristine emptiness, for the hard-to-please mind, emptiness begins to lose its aura. 

It is because it loses its aura, and not because emptiness elicits a drive to be filled, that the man and his mind move forward, towards filling the empty thing, or rather, of composing fillings which are then thrown towards the empty. This movement towards inventing fillings is the historic step, the step everyone is obsessed about, so let us first focus on other things. Let's pay attention to: man furnishing and inventing his tools, or buying tools from the universe, or trading the tools he has with those of the mind (for the mind is always ready to make a trade). And then, after this there is the cleansing of the body, the general process of the readying for the use of tools, which is nothing other than the ritual before entering history, history which is so selective...before which, once again, one has to bend one's knees as if a slave to emptiness, and not just emptiness this time, but the silence which speaks of anticipation. 

Let's then make a small description of tools, the first of which and one which we will thus focus on is the mind itself...the mind which is a tool of trade. And after this very short description, let us move on to what we are all expecting here anyways, the nitty-gritty specifics, as far as we can proceed to highlight them, of the historic moment itself. Between you and I,I must say that even this focus on the historic moment will be short, given that we are generally faced with a loss for words in the historic. 

So, a description of tools: they are mechanical, but that doesn't mean that a lot of experience nor energy is needed to use them. Only a deft touch here, a short method there, an instruction here and there...that is all there is to use tools. The tool is about knowledge rather than physical force (and thus can't we discern the influence of the mind upon the tool here?) And then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, one knows how to use tools! But, one may know how to use tools, yet know nothing of it, there are a lot of things unknown about them, there is just too much knowledge about them...one is more enamored by the deft touch, the bit of instruction, and then: the historical moment...

So, with a deft touch, tools have been accessed. And now we enter the realm of the historic moment: and it is the moment when the man begins to use tools on the emptiness. And the only thing to do with emptiness is to fill it, and so he begins to fill it, with his tools at hand, but he does so in such a way as to make the emptiness artful, and in such a way, quite peculiarly, that no longer makes emptiness stand out nor the work upon it, but rather, both seem to be on their own, and at peace. This is ideal work from man, the best he has done. And the tool too is intact, it never wears out. True, it is traded, but it is always in use. But like all else, it is lost. 

In this historic moment, the man performs many things, he does several acts all at once. And he continues to trade with the mind, the mind gives something, and itself gets lost in the universe of ideas. There are great feats by the man and his tools, the man tries to do justice, he tries to do the right things, he tries to say and speak the truth, he tries to do things in clarity and so on and so on....but what one sees, for now, at this historic juncture, one is invited, to witness, and what one sees is that the emptiness now filled with fillings, but not completely, and it peeks in at times, this emptiness, in all its glory, this emptiness, and everyone says, remembering the past, the pre-historic, 'Oh, that emptiness, this emptiness.' 

Thursday, January 9, 2014

The navel of the dream is its signature


The part which constitutes identity does not in any way need to refer to the whole on whose name the identity can be constituted. In other words, it can be an insignificant part, a non-thematic part, and, importantly, a part that is not entirely visible in its relation to the whole to the recipient of the schema/material, when the material is presented. The location of the part is still within the whole, which is a form of traditionalism that pervades signification, but this is as much determined by a will of the author as by any apparent manifestation of the part. It is a small part, indeed, the smaller the part, the bigger its impact, it seems, as if the small part can so position itself that it can form the linkage and the node in the gaps between the bigger parts. Due primarily to its size, it is a linking component, where things from the other parts pass through in a way that only characterizes its partiality (that when a part of the other component passes through it, another part of it has already left it, the linkage cannot consume the whole of another part completely, and this is the guiding principle of linkages), even among the other parts (which are active). As a side note, I feel this could be, actually, a dangerous position: it can topple the rhizomatic behavior of the more extensive parts, as a ‘rebellious linkage,’ or, it can serve as the linkage that demonstrates that focus should be on the more smaller components of a text/schema, as they provide the links, it is they that provide the meaning of the relation/continuity between the larger components of the text/schema. I am not vouching for the emphasis and importance of the linkage of the schema wholesale over its more ‘fixed’ and active elements (traditionally depicted by enclosures), but rather for the less extensive connections, the seemingly smaller connections, not because they are directly apparent as important, but they have been made so by the authors these days. The composition of the material itself revolves, today, around the ‘signature’ element, not in the sense that the material emanates out of this signature and is composed by a relationship with this signature, but rather that this signature adds an arbitrary sense of continuity between the different components, precisely in the presentation of this schema to the audience, and the signature is also a sign of passage. The emphasis on the signature is not within the text but only in its presentation, and it is a very dominating signature, it is highly emphasized, in the presentation, as the key element that holds the text together. The navel of the dream is a signature. What, then, does the linkage show for the whole, for in the end we must think more of the whole after all? It shows that the whole is composed of gaps, where other elements can come in and form linkages. There are parts, gaps, and only then, the whole, and in this sense, the whole is, paradoxically, not the whole at all. Crucially, the whole cannot be filled by any other ‘active’ element, but must be filled by a linking element, such is the nature of the gaps, i.e., the gaps are narrow, and one cannot overlap the things that compose the whole except through linking elements.   

Saturday, January 4, 2014

other/Other: two ethics in Lacan

other/Other: two ethics in Lacan

Analysis, and especially psychoanalysis, is imperial and colonial, in other words, intrusive. Psychoanalysis expects individuals to share details of their sexual life and dreams regularly, and also makes individuals come clean about their innermost feelings and thoughts. Analysis, in anthropology, perversely keeps the outsider in the scene, who has the upper-hand and power in making judgments about cultures, cultural products and subjects (individuals) without understanding the specific context, history and feelings of the individuals involved. That psychoanalysis and anthropology has been kept apart as disciplines shows that those seeking control today wish to keep the intrusiveness of analysis in general alive, it is a divide an conquer strategy, and it has many positive consequences for those individuals and societies. Some of these positive consequences of intrusiveness can include such things as generating fear as an emotion, making the analyst able to affect change in other places without causing much disruption and, especially in the context of this paper, enabling concepts and signs to be placed at depth within a developed theory and knowledge. On the one hand, Lacan subscribes to intrusive analysis and suspends the ethical question.

On the other hand, Lacan is very aware of the ethical question regarding the intrusiveness of analysis and knows that ethics inevitably causes a disruption of analysis. Lacanian psychoanalysis generally has a close proximity with ethics, Lacan articulating the ethics behind psychoanalysis continuously in his seminars. Lacan was very concerned with the ethical question, precisely because he saw behind the question of ethics the very presence and possibility of reaching a truth or not, not only reaching the truth, but rather considering its existence, recognizing its existence, even without having to actually articulate it. It is because truth is elusive in Lacan that the question of ethics must be expanded, clarified and placed squarely as one of the important components of Lacanian psychoanalysis. And it is for an ethical turn regarding intrusive analysis that Lacanian psychoanalysis may be subscribed to by analysts generally.

Two Lacanian concepts can be considered thoroughly ethical concepts, that touch on the issues of ethics, law and truth each in their own way. We can take the rhyming nature of the two concepts to suggest that they are two sides around each of the three issues we have just highlighted in Lacanian psychoanalysis. These two concepts are the concepts of other and Other (i.e., the big Other), which must be looked at in turn to see what they have to show us regarding the position of ethics in Lacanian psychoanalysis.

The other is any individual who does not fit into the prevailing cultural and social categories of a territorialized society. Any individual that does not fit into the language, cultural make-up and societal laws of the territory is considered as an other of that territory. It is a common assertion to make that the other of western societies today is the terrorist. Not only does the terrorist, due to his religious and social background, not 'fit in' with western societies, but he is out to get western societies, it is his duty to break the laws prescribed in western societies and act according to the formulated laws of his own group. In this sense, the other is himself/herself an unethical subject.

In Lacan, this other can be analyzed and must be analyzed. Analyzing the other is something that is integral to the workings of a text that analyzes the rest of society, the non-othered society, for the terms other and non-other, i.e., 'self,' are reflections. Therefore, Lacan is intrusive into the other, as we all are inevitably intrusive into the self primarily, and his ethics is suspended regarding this other. The very term signifies that he is excluding a category of people emphatically (for in Lacanian analysis, the point of his terminology and concepts is not just to record observations but to directly influence the reader regarding his stance on certain subjects and individuals). Thus, the other is actively othered, excluded, and the terrain of analysis as it applies to him/her is quite large in the Lacanian texts. There is no question of intrusion and subsequent ethical dilemmas. The other is, rather, free for all, an analytic concept full of possibilities of descriptors. We can also categorically other someone, we can make him/her feel excluded, and there is no consequence in Lacan of doing this. The other is a concept that demonstrates one side of Lacanian analysis with respect to ethics: that we can suspend ethics while doing this type of analysis as we suspend it doing any other type of analysis. But the concentration of this suspension to such a narrow term and related terrain suggests that even if we may leave the question of ethics out, it is only in particular contexts, specifically, only in the discussion of things that are othered. Just because we may other someone doesn't mean we can leave ethics out in the whole field of Lacanian analysis.

On to the wholly different question of the big Other (from now on, just Other). Let's begin by considering what Lacan considers the Other, which may even shed some light into the reasons for his distantiation from Freud's explanation of the Oedipus Complex. Lacan believes that 'the mother is the first Other.' We may begin our question into the ethics of Lacanian analysis by looking at this one statement. What the Other means in this context is that the mother lacks an analytical descriptor. It means that the Other, the term, is a deflective term, a deflection, whereas all the other words in this statement derive their meaning in combination. It means, simply put, that the analytic descriptor of the mother is elsewhere, it is not to be found in this statement, it is 'Other' to this statement, it is elusive. The function of the term Other in the statement 'the mother is the first Other' is similar to the function of the word '#ERROR' in a statement such as 'All elephants are #ERROR.' For all purposes, we expect a coherent statement, where the last word comprises a horizontal combinatorial relationship with the rest of the words and produces a coherent meaning, namely an analytic descriptor about all elephants. But we do not get that, instead, we get the breakdown of the statement, and we get an incompleteness of the statement, there seems to be something wrong with the computer that leaves the statement incomplete. The word Other is a function in a statement that is vertical in orientation, as if arising from another faculty in Lacan's brain that shows that the analysis of the mother resists a descriptor, exactly at the point that a descriptor is demanded. Other fills in the place of an analytic descriptor. But the example with the #ERROR function only goes so far, for the word Other signifies possibilities rather than a stoppage, rather than a complete obstacle. The word Other seems to show that there is a descriptor for mother, and indeed there are innumerable descriptors, but in a sense, any descriptor fits into the statement, and also no matter what descriptor one uses, it doesn't quite complete the Lacanian assertions and texts regarding the mother. In this sense, the Other is called “radical alterity,” it doesn't fit into the text and its purpose is not to combine the text but to spell its defeat.

How does this fit into the question of ethics in Lacanian analysis via law? The concept of the Other is a function, and whatever is Other cannot be intruded into as a law. It gives the text a dimension of mathematical law. Due to the function of Other, it is impossible to totally deduce analysis and analytic descriptors from the statement 'mother is the first Other,' which means that analysis here is stopped by the law of a function. Lacanian analysis is therefore not about ethical preferences but rather about the impossibility of having an objective ethical standpoint in the face of law. It is the law inaugurated by the Other that makes Lacanian analysis less intrusive and therefore ethically 'good.' It is the impossibility of speaking the true analytic descriptor of the mother that makes the mother significantly more untouched in Lacanian analysis than in other analytic models. The Other deflects meaning, it makes meaning elusive and it signifies the incompleteness of the sentence, and due to this a final judgment on the mother cannot be passed, she cannot be stamped with an analysis and she herself, as a being, can break down and break apart the text, as if her presence was in the text of Lacan, and the life of Lacan, beyond what Lacan could attempt to say about her.


The Scar

The Scar

Although it could possibly be endless, or it could not be, for some reason it was stuck on the man's mind, it was convincing the man, that it was in fact endless. We are talking about this realm. This realm which includes everything, and which as such may be endless, insofar as all things that it includes only exist as signs to pay tribute to its endlessness, and to give markers to the man's mind, as he reaches further and further, that he will still find things...and slowly but surely man began to sense that his position was that of being defeated. Man is spoiled, and he thinks that at this point he is nothing other than a loser in a game.

So let us engage with man's mind, the thoughts he has which suggest to him that this realm is indeed endless. This realm at issue, which, if it makes things clearer, is actually a pretty concrete realm, something, let us say, like a cloud, suddenly envelops the man's senses, and the man believes that this universe of one particular thing is endless and limitless. We are not talking about an age old question about the infinite universe here, we are actually talking about something concrete man happens to encounter one day, as he is going about his duty. He encounters this realm, and it 'stuffs' everything, there are no gaps and holes, there are no points that exist outside of it. It is grand, too grand for the everyday, but the everyday is where it happens to be...

Until this point, man believes that he is lost within this realm, and it is up to this point that he believes he has lost a game. He has lost a struggle and not found the strength to challenge this realm, which fills everything. Man himself is nothing, an undefined, in the field of things which has an existence and presence. Man is, for the majority at least, invisible...he is on the losing side of this battle against the realm. And we must draw a certain general conclusion here: that man is to always give primacy to this belief that he is in a battle with this limitless realm.

But then another realization dawns on his mind. Another observation, which, in fact, signifies to him the possibility that God has silently slipped in through the door, while he himself was drunk on his own thoughts. For the new thought he has is this: 'look, this thing, this realm, not only does it seem to exist in limitlessness, and not only is it grand, but it is so grand that it is stifling. In a sense, it stifles everything. Everything has been pushed away, and destroyed into nonexistence by this realm because it has an oppressive force acting outwards. And it is not a spatial nonexistence, meaning that, it is not that things are obliterated physically, but even as they are there, in front of our very eyes, they are in fact non existent, non existent in the universe and dimension that matters...But, and this is why I think I haven't lost this battle just yet, why hasn't it stifled me? Why do I not feel stifled? Why, unlike the inert and lifeless things in this universe, am I alive and well and vital?'

This realization in the mind of man not only leads to him optimistically thinking of the possibility that he is in fact not on the losing side against the limitless, but rather, that he is in the winning side, that because he is not stifled by the limitless realm which hopes to stuff everything, he is in fact the one which is doing the stifling. And a far more 'evil' logic now circulates in the mind of man, spinning a whirlpool with strands of possibilities, which is that the man and the realm 'work together,' that man stifles part of the thing into inertness and the realm stifles another part of the thing into inertness. In a sense, man tops off what the realm tries to do. It is an ideal partnership between a stifling limitless realm and the man which cannot be stifled. But we must know better: for man is still on the losing side, frustratingly for him, in a sense, because the one weakness on the part of the realm now works for it.

But let us say that the man himself is content in this new found thought. What this means for us, is that man is now getting to a point that he is willing to accept the easier convincing argument over the more meandering one. But this new thought, that man and this realm of limitlessness are partners, is a thought so powerful, so consuming the man, and giving him so much energy that all its energy piles up and up and forms for the man to hold in his hand a massive staff, a rod, something with which, the man thinks, he can discipline. And he strikes, not so much to control those inert things, for these things are already dead, but to resist falling back into the idea that he is in fact defeated, that he, from his very origination, has been defeated. Any sense of real control over inert things is a fallacy. If things have been controlled, they have been done so by another agency, not man.

But nobody has said anything about defeat. Nobody has said anything about loss. It is, indeed, a part of life living in this realm. But when man strikes and moves on, strikes with his rod and moves on, he leaves behind something, a scar, something which does not signify a loss, but rather, a failure, in the eyes of God who has slowly left and shut the lights out.

But we are here, we are to be forever with the man, for in a way we have never been with him completely for him to fail us. What we can say to the man is this: that man must not think that God has a special plan for him, that he must not imagine that God will always be there for him. Rather, man must think so that God's relationship to man is one of many relationships, that, no matter how special in relation to the realm man is, he is one of many to God. God does his duty with man, just as with anything else, and he moves on...



Does a Thing Influence the Mind?

Does a Thing Influence the Mind?


In everyday life, we believe that the mind is something which is within the body, somehow it is locatable within the body, and that it has some form of relationship with the biological brain. In philosophy, however, the problem of the mind (and the mind first of all has always been a problematic thing in philosophy, as an obstacle is problematic, and not easily accounted for by knowledges like biology) is that the mind seems transcendent to the brain, to the body, and indeed, to all the ways that we traditionally imagine the mind. What this means is that, if we consider a super-entity, an entity which encompasses all things, or houses all things, including the human brain, then this entity is also a mind. To put it simply, it seems that the mind houses the body and not the opposite way, and to extend this, it seems that the mind houses the universe rather than the universe housing the mind. The mind is, therefore, a transcendental entity, a 'super-entity' which resists being housed by other things, but rather, houses other things. It is, to put it simply, any entity that houses the human mind itself, in that, the mind of philosophy is not the human mind, it is somewhat like God's mind. An interesting issue that arises, as a side note to this paper, is whether then that we are in fact characters in the universe (a 'dream' of God, if you will) of God's mind, that is, are we within God's mind?

The mind, therefore, is a super-entity, which means that, all things may be figments of the mind...as some say, it is all in the mind...or, at the very least, and this is the chief concern for this paper, all things may be influenced by the mind, may be imbued by the mind, in that, we perceive things differently from how they are. It is the mind, for instance, that perceives a piece of paper as litter or as news. This depends on the mind, that is, things are dependent on the mind, if no entirely, then partially. The question we have, therefore, is whether, as the mind has influence upon things, and imbues things with meaning etc, and decides the fate of things (if the paper is news, it is read, and if it is litter, it is thrown away...) whether in a similar vein, things have an influence upon the mind? If we say that things indeed do have an influence upon the mind, then we are properly metaphysically dualistic, but, if we consider that the mind is not influenced by things, then we have a somewhat monistic understanding of the universe where things indeed could possibly be figments of the mind. So, does a thing influence the mind?

First, let us recourse briefly to the normal, everyday understanding of the mind. In this understanding, we have the case where the mind depreciates, as it is a part of the body, and so, it dies when the body dies. Since death is linked with the external world of things, it seems then that the mind itself is imbued with the external world of things, that it is influenced by things. Just as when things pass through a machine in an assembly line, and that machine depreciates as more and more things pass through it, the mind depreciates as more and more things are considered. This is generally biologically explained as 'ageing' for instance. The fact that one gets older means that one's mind gets older as well.

But, in this paper, we consider such a depreciation of the mind a different phenomenon, something unrelated to our question. Our question, rather, sees the mind as something more digital: as soon as one wakes up or is born, one has mind. As soon as dies or goes to sleep (let's ignore the phenomena of the unconscious and dreams here) one loses one's mind. Let us consider that the mind is not a machine that depreciates, in fact, let us say that the time period in which we observe this mind is minutes and not years, so that we do not even notice depreciation if it occurs. The mind, in our paper, does not depreciate, but, it is switched on as soon as we are alive and switched off as soon as we die. In short, what we mean by mind is that ability to keep on perceiving, no matter how old one is, to keep on being conscious, to keep on being mentally alive, so to speak. The problem is indeed heightened by the fact that the mind is digitalized. As any digital entity, it seems to work on its own whims, turning on and off at will, and does not, importantly, manifest a nuance to show that things indeed influence it, that is begins as something and then becomes something else. The mind, it seems, is too essential throughout, in that, it is mind at one point and not-mind at another point of time.

The nuanced question for this paper is whether things just pass through the mind, without influencing the mind at all? We do know that things pass through the mind, that things are what the mind is conscious of. But, does the mind stay the same, in that, does it stay as it is always when things pass through it? It seems, with recourse to the digital mind, that it stays the same until it isn't so, out of its own accord. It seems the mind ultimately changes, given the digital mind, out of an influence of itself upon itself. It self-destructs in spontaneity, it seems. So, we can conclude, firstly, that the mind indeed does not get influenced by other things, that things just pass through the mind without touching it. The mind is, in this scenario, a gap, or a hole, a void and an absence, which does not get effected and influenced by other things which pass through the hole. The ultimate mind, the super entity, the non-human mind, is therefore just an absence, a not there that allows the things of this world to exist as they do. (Additionally, this is simply the negation of the question of what the mind exists as and the bolstering of the question of what the mind exists for, what it exists to do.) It exists to influence other things, but, when confronted by whether things have influence upon it, we have to say no, since it is only an absence when encountered from the perspective of things. Sure, things may attempt to influence the mind, and this may be a fundamental nature of things, but all they ultimately do is pass through it. Indeed, we may apply the sociological concept of 'wasted lives' to things and declare them as 'wasted independent existences' because things are, in a sense, thoroughly dependent upon the mind, insofar as they exist just for the mind to have an influence upon them. This is the somewhat monistic viewpoint that we were thinking of at the beginning of the paper. So, the thing passes through the mind but does not press upon it.
This, however, is not our final answer, for there is a serious case for proper metaphysical duality as well. How then do things influence the mind? How do things press upon the mind? Let us first consider the nature of the mind dwelling upon the thing. It is my assertion here that we began our observation and investigation into this phenomena without addressing the crucial primary step regarding it. We immediately felt that the mind, upon thinking of the thing at all, has an influence upon the thing. However, what is the step before that? What is the mind thinking for when it thinks of the thing? Why does the mind think of that particular thing in the first place? It is my assertion here that, if we once again begin to detach the mind from the human mind located in the brain (something I believe here that monism is still guilty of), we can safely say that the mind is not just our mind, but it is the mind of everything, it is the mind of things. I do not mean it is the mind of that tree when one is thinking of that tree, but rather, it is the mind of all things in collection, it is the mind of a multiplicity of which the tree is a part. The totality of all things has an influence upon the mind. When the mind thinks of a tree, it is the tree which comes alive, it is the tree which has a vitality, not because the tree individually has influenced the mind, but because, it is the multiplicity which influences the mind in a sustained manner. The mind thinks of the tree on behalf of the multiplicity of things. It is because the mind thinks on behalf of the tree can we say that things do indeed influence the mind, indeed, all things altogether do so. It is for the tree to come alive, to become more vital, that the mind serves its duty to think of the tree.

We cannot say, the tree does not have a mind of its own, it indeed does have a mind of its own! The mind, the super-entity, is a mind of all things and for all things, precisely because it is also influenced by things. It is not an authoritarian and elite mind, it is a mind of things, a mind of the masses. The thing calls upon the mind to think not just of it but for it. But that is not to say that the mind does not just think of the thing either. It does both, of it and for it. In this way, the mind has both an independent existence and a dependent existence, and so do things. To end, we must say that there is no super-super entity encapsulating the mind-of-things and the things themselves, the external rim of this duality is the external most point of possible observation and serious consideration.


Responsibilties

Responsibilities

The best feeling came first in this episode. Let us say that, we have, from the very beginning, been on the top of a mountain, and that, we are to be here for a while, that there is no hurry to go elsewhere. We have balance up here at the peak, it is not as if anything is disturbing us.

So the best feeling came when things were far off. But not, contrary to what many have come to believe, when things are far and getting further. And, it is not that this event does not make one happy, but it is a case of whether the happiness arrives easily or is more harder to come by. It is not as if, when things are pushed further, one is more happy. Rather, it is a peculiar type of happiness that comes from responsibilities coming closer...and we are not mistaken here, for it is a happiness first and foremost, even though, with time, it may appear to have been shrouded by other feelings. One can call these things responsibilities only if one is to generalize, if one is to believe in the general picture of things, if one is to not move too close and trust this current perspective. But, in fact, there are some that have real meaning, more than the more subjective interpretation that it is a responsibility, it is rather, something else, a thing, at the last instance...and to return to the subjective, which one is always apt to do, it is nothing other than something that one can savor.

And whoever finds, at this distance, a feeling of satisfaction, an intensity of contentment, a willingness to stay there, a death, does not see something which others have considered special: that these things which one will eventually encounter are in fact alive, and not in the sense that each individual thing is alive, and has a certain personality, or that its aliveness is imposing....but rather, it is only a dance, a dance of a swaying motion...this way and that way, and it causes a philosophical assertion to develop, which passes as a bell ringing in the stillness of the void: that this is a dance based on the footsteps of one's walk in the path towards responsibilities.

It is, in fact, quite 'short sighted' to only observe the dance in all this. For, to know what is really going on, consider this: the whole aesthetic of this is, to put it a way, 'correct.' Everything fits in, there are no points that seem disparate, and there is no feeling, the general uneasy feeling fused with paranoia, that there are invisible elements in this. The things are shining, and a general wind is blowing, and the sound of one's footsteps as the sound of drums with loosely woven leather...and everything feels correct.

And what is going on most well, what is most fitting, in this path towards responsibilities is nothing other than the path itself. When one turns around, the path starts nowhere, and when one looks forward, the path is quite picturesque, winding around like a snake and shining golden in the gold...therefore what one actually falls in love with, and is happy about, is nothing but the path, in relation to which even the responsibilities seem distant.


Now in close proximity to the responsibilities, one sees and contemplates more on the things that one knew all along: that there are things that one wanted, and there are things that one did not want, but, most of all, one finds that the thing is taut: it doesn't yield, which is to say that one has finally entered the general realm where experience is paramount. And this experience is quite extreme, it is not simply the experience where one believes that this encounter with responsibilities is transitory, rather, this is the final encounter, this is where the path ends...and one turns around and one sees the path winding golden, and one knows that there is a great chance, an enormous chance, that one stand back from this encounter and trace the path back to nowhere...for, in a way, these things aren't responsibilities yet. But what is special about this character, this one that we have here, is that he gives in to the encounter, and he lets the encounter consume him, he takes it all, he is a fully responsible being.  

Slows Steps on the Way...

Slow Steps on the Way...

What is it with rapidity, one would think, for, in this case, at least in this case, it was a good question, and this being such a case that it could be used as an example and offered up as a philosophy of the general law which one believed, that is, that there was no use of rapidity...in other words, this case would make a great argument for the uselessness of rapidity...

And so, things would begin slowly, as things often do, and they would go through some of the necessary steps that 'human nature' had asked one to make. They would follow a sequence, in other words, which was slow. The first step, the slow step we are talking of, being 'inspection', for things had to be inspected first, and one has to be careful not to go straight to the act with a thing that does not fit. For there is, in a sense, a hole, in one's mind, that is a placeholder for things, and all things must fit in it—and all things do fit in it...Nothing short of infinity fits in it, but still one has to go through the necessary steps, slowly, for inspection and slowness seem aligned for some reason, but it could be just something one does out of habit. Nonetheless, this thing did fit the mind, and indeed, it was a perfect match, and this led one to question, quite briefly, but indeed this too slowed things down a bit, which was important as we have pointed out, the question as to whether the mind was in fact plastic, which could be stretched or diminished for things to fit it. Two things have happened in the first step when in fact nothing has happened: the thing has fit the mind, and rapidity seems to have been reasoned away from this...

Now that rapidity has been established as dead, one can calmly move on to the second step here. Just as nothing really happened in the first step, nothing really happens in the second step. This is, in a sense, and in one sense only, the step of 'further inspection.' This means that it differs from the first step, because it goes further, but that it is still inspection nonetheless. This was different: there was an intimacy involved, there were moments involved when the past would come flooding in...and there was time involved when time would melt away, which means time was reduced in significance. It was, most importantly, a time of belief in things. For one, one believed in love here. One believed in those important events of the past. But this was of course a disappointing time, a confusing time, because one would find that nothing really fit together, that if one believed one thing the other believed something else, that if one felt this was important the other felt that was important. That is why we first established the other as a thing in this story's first step, it is first a thing because for one, it is truly lifeless, 'already dead' in one sense...and in another sense so worthless that even death is trivial when it happens to it. Therefore, the step of 'further inspection' is nothing other than the step where one establishes the other as a thing. It is, in a sense, the step that gets too close, from the perspective of building knowledge about the other. And so, in the sleepless nights of burning arguments...one asks, who knows to whom our feelings are really addressed, if they are indeed addressed to anything or anyone? Thus ends the second step on the way.

Two steps and nothing has happened. One wanted things to be slow, but things are in a standstill in another dimension. The third step is a sacrifice of the highest degree: Everyone has been assembled. And one rises to the top and tells them all: 'look, we are about to partake in a sacrifice, partake in it and not just witness it, and so please make sure that you do your part. My only note for the day is this: that sacrifice has been problematized because it is considered a 'cult of death', that it is considered all about death, and since death is wrong, sacrifice is wrong...'...and of course one saw that he was right, that we were doing this sacrifice neither for death nor for God, but, quite simply, for the sake of a system of steps...the slow steps on the way...to show that a system of steps is so strong that even human life has to be taken away to legitimize it...indeed, when human life is taken away by a system of steps, the system, and any system, appears strong and serious...and death in the series of steps is not the final step...death is also a slow step on the way... therefore, all the people convened close to the top, and they decided to bring a bowl...a bowl which they would leave by their feet, and which would thereby fill with tears flowing...
*
In the above paragraphs, we moved all the way to men, but we must maintain and try to argue that, up there, nothing happens: we started with the thing's inspection, we then proceeded to a secondary inspection, and finally we came upon sacrificial death at the hands of men, which is nothing but a tertiary inspection, an inspection of innards, if you will. In the passage beyond the '*', what we really have is that the thing diminishes, and the men who killed it diminishes, but that the system of steps is not closed, because nothing in fact actually happened, and the system of steps has neither begun nor ended. One realizes, giving a message from the top, that, there, nothing happens. One climbs steps, but one never reaches top nor bottom...all a series of steps where nothing happens. One plays with time, slows things down...or brings things to a standstill, but nothing happens when one does and when one doesn't.

*