Oddities or Even-tualities? D’être Bêtement Objectif

Lacques Jacan

We know that in the mind of a creator of new ideas things are much more fluid and flexible than they are in the minds of his followers. They do not possess his vital creativity, and they make up for this deficiency by a dogmatic allegiance, in exactly the same way as their opponents, who, like them, cling to the dead letter because they cannot grasp its living content.

Carl Gustav Jung. 1961, § 375.


What does one know? One knows the form of the question. The faculty of this knowledge learns its learning through, and despite, “…a domain of significations that continues to exist”…[1], as the unsupposed content of the form of the question. As we have seen earlier[2], the avowedly Oedipal a-nalyst must begin to unlearn the interpsychological bêtise,—his creti-nous fixation for the real—, a predilection for interpellating himself into the rational collective of the imaginary relation, and, as its fragile framework of coevality with the other’s semblability [capacity for standing in as semblable for the analysand^, in his fantasmatic relation with the object of his desire].

“Within this framework, the experience is one which fades away. It cannot be made logical[3]”. The wisdom of this absurdity is the form of the question. The abyssal inquiry of the question without content is not for a truth of meaning; it is not concerned with the moronic fetish for ‘reality as actuality’. The form of the question is concerned with a différance which encrypts all unassumed content with the design of randomity. The unsupposed content of the question projects its formal adequacy as the meaning of content qua content under the form of the question: the [object] a-nalyst which interprets the session under its symbolic net is itself a product of the imaginary apodicity of the absurd. In this structure of question begging there rises now a risible rakehell: the compulsion to repeat as a-nalysis.


[1] Lacan, Jacques. Alain-Miller, Jacques, Ed. Trans. Tomaselli, Sylvana. Book II: The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954-1955. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. p. 187.

[2]The secret lack of the psycho-analytic object that substantiates the imaginary gestalts of the analyst interpreting the contributions of the analysand with his pre-conscious theoria, and hindsight, is it-self the psycho-analyst’s unattainable Objet a  and its irrepressible, melancholic remembrance of jouissance^ : the analyst’s Objet a as Oedipalised a-nalyst is his non-entity”. Jacan, Lacques. (2013). Book I. i/II “Objet a & the Oedipal Objet d’ a-nalyst: The Hermeto-logical Phallus”. Lacques Jacan. See here < https://lacquesjacan.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/book-i-iii-objet-a-the-oedipal-a-nalyst-the-hermeto-logical-phallus/ >.

[3] Lacan, Jacques. Ibid. p. 181.

Also see, for how imaginary collectives derive their semblablities from the fantasmatic participation of free subjects suspended between an odd even game against reality and its character:

“RB: The ‘speculative realist movement’ exists only in the imaginations of a group of bloggers promoting an agenda for which I have no sympathy whatsoever: actor-network theory spiced with pan-psychist metaphysics and morsels of process philosophy. I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to concoct a philosophical movement online by using blogs to exploit the misguided enthusiasm of impressionable graduate students. I agree with Deleuze’s remark that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I see little philosophical merit in a ‘movement’ whose most signal achievement thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity.”
http://speculativehumbug.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/brassier-blogging/ >.

^ ‘[T]he signifier represents the subject for another signifier…[w]e have one signifier… relating to another signifier…representing a subject…for that signifier…This representation of the subject for another signifier produces a loss of jouissance, and Lacan represents that loss or surplus-jouissance with the matheme “a”.’ Larval Subjects.

http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/lacan-and-the-4-or-16-fantasies/ >.


One thought on “Oddities or Even-tualities? D’être Bêtement Objectif

  1. Pingback: Reflections on Alan Roland (2011) | Lacques Jacan

Comments are closed.