Intersectionalities: The a-nalytical Cathexis Through Laruelle

Lacques Jacan

             The communion of three insights, namely [1] that there is no time in the unconscious or non-thinking part of the mind, [2] that there is no relation of necessity between the ordinal and the nominal idea of rational exhaustion, and [3] that there is no necessary relation between the sufficiency of an idea and the semantic commitment of an idea for the concept in question to be coherent, real and capable of disclosure in both semantic and experiential terms creates a reflective foothold for speculative reason. Here, I examine the reflexive circularity of that vaunted oracle which Oedipus has championed in our fantasy with the help of Laruelle’s nonidentical mediation into the unconscious core of analyticity in psycho-analysis.

[1]The idea of concepts which are intuitable as self-evident from participation in life rests lightly on its delicate analytic underbelly. What was once experience became a reflected label of knowledge; mediation then became an interregnum between thought being dissolved by the substantiality of its nonbeing and its projection of immanent Being realised in the aetiological present. Beyond this point, the Cogito of sense certainty has been stretched thin unless virtual plausibility, or what constitutes sufficient analytic description, is transformed by the negative into the plausible virtuality of the principle of sufficient reason. This entails thinking descriptions as creating events rather than events being mere representations of the actuality of the real; psycho-analysis is committed to the aetiological momenta of the present symptom[2], for here alone the prime agentic identity semblables reveal their maker’s desire as unthought.


Laruelle calls ‘“Desiring desire” the doublet which opens analysis

        and the difference which implodes it in super-analysis

Either it desires itself
Inverts reverts itself into super-analysis
Big with a thousand desired-desiring amphibologies

Either it ceases in the One (of) desire to desire itself
Emerges to its own manifestation
As three states (of) desire
Categories of a non-analysis

– The One (of) desire
– or the Desired-without-desire
– the order of the real’


I.              The Imaginary as narcissistically cathexed to the virtual actuality of desiring semblables:

First, the mirror gleans the Ego’s ascent through its inherent psychical predispositions; the distance which makes reflexion possible as removed from the present living moment as experienced by the idea also alienates the narcissistic big Other a-nalyst. He insinuates a surface of appearances that may be illusive, but their illusion is of another order abstracted upon the firmament of the signifier that is the One and only signifier of the self semblable; thus, it comes to be that the blind analyst finds his questioning to be the measure of sufficiency for analytic propositions, and, then coming to describe the semantic commitments of the these propositions by embodying their denotative and connotative illocutionary force, he instils in the phantasm of an a-nalytic structure in the atemporal unconscious his very semblable altered to suit his imaginary semantic commitments to the virtual actuality of his symptomatic discourse. Thus, [3]the imaginary comes to impregnate itself with the symbolic detritus of the big Other a-nalyst, and his allmighty narcissism.

‘- The Being (of) desire
– or the Desirings which are [the] multitude
of desire-thinking
– the order of the symbolic’

II.             The Symbolic as the detritus of the anal eroticism of the big Other a-nalyst cathexed to the virtual virtuality of desiring semblables:

 

As the mutually differentiated nodes of the rapacious big Other a-nalyst and his One and only semblable come to maturity in the analyst’s psychotic capitulation to the insinuations of the former’s formidable imaginary commitments to the virtual actuality of its own desiring duality, or indeterminacy as concealed by the symptom, we have the emergence of the symbolic order of this big Other a-nalyst. The big Other a-nalyst excretes differential qualia, quanta and modalities of determination whereby the desire of an [4]auto-nominating Oedipus Complex becomes subservient to the unconsciousness of the big Other a-nalyst.

 
‘ – The Entity (of) desire
– or desiring Desire
– the order of the imaginary’

  1. III.           The real as a psychotic bent of the big Other a-nalyst whose excretions concretise through the tradition of psycho-analysis and become portals of incalculable [5]spatiotemporal dedifferentiation and impossibilitisation of propositionality by the designative semantic commitments of its desire.

 

This order may be seen as the actual virtuality of all symbolic productions accruing from the symbolic maturation of imaginary narcissistic impulses issuing from the anal eroticism of the big Other a-nalyst and his One and only self semblable. The dead letter of the symbolic and the traumatic closure of the actual on the virtual actuality of the symbolic order, and its imaginary ordination to the self semblable, is naught but the impossible injunction of the big Other a-nalyst to impossibilise the closure of the actual on the spatiotemporal, and mediate, redundancy of the virtual actuality of symbolic propositions of desire.

Laruelle calls the ‘“One (of) desire” or Desired the Enjoyed (of) jouissance

The One (of) jouissance rather than the jouissance of the One
That which in desire is enjoyed from both ends
That to which desire does not give its share
That part of desire which appears to desire alone
Its absolutely un-desirable and just so desired phenomenon’


The creative interpellation of the analyst who presides on the lived relata of psycho-analytic theory blossoms like a questioning gaze in the grounding semblable of a presumed symbolic closure. The present is where an aetiological arché (ἀρχή) insinuates itself retroactively into the essential obduracy of the analyst in session, and his occult objet d’ analysis in the present. The analyst as a token of his professional type sets about laying down received shibboleths of theory[5] into the intersubjective space of the session, and the analysand’s query is dissolved in the traditional Oedipal solvent. The residual coherence of the analysand’s question, or the form of his questioning impulses and symptoms[6], come to resist the quilting force of the psycho-analytic object, i.e. the objet d’ a-nalyst inasmuch as they exceed the hermeto-logical shadow of the theoretical stiffness of the analyst. The analyst desires the symptom and its total power to be exerted upon the analysand inasmuch as symbolic excesses of the analysand’s desire resist the provenance of theory. There is, then, a sense in which the penetrating insights of the analyst are actually interpassive invaginations and the tender symptomal lacuna in the self semblable of the analysand—as introjected by the analyst—is actually a phallic gear handle. Though the analyst may withdraw from the psycho-analytic field situated in the reality principle he may do so only with the assurance proffered by an ideational pleroma: atelic synchronisation with-out totalising subjectivity must be his self semblability. The way this happens is determined by the quality of the analyst’s distraction[7]. The higher the quality of distraction from the rigid object d’ analysis, and its throbbing, symptomatic desire, the less of his own dirty fantasies will the analyst find in the analysand’s production of psycho-analytic artefacts.

‘The Enjoyed suspended in its own immanence
What begins and completes itself with no circle
Begins there without departing from it
Completes itself there without return

Deserted without desire
Too simple the desert is not rare

Desired, absolute past of desire
Enjoyed, absolute past of enjoyment
As the Lived
Precedes the living the Affected
Affection the Enjoyed
Jouissance
Solitude of closed eyes before
The confinement of solitude’


The fact of this miracle may not put one off the responsibility that rides roughshod on the back of the analyst: his commitment to the w-hole of the analysand is incumbent upon his grasping of straws in the stability of an imaginary relation to the analysand’s semblable. Only in the transference and counter-transference of a session may the analyst appreciate the quiddity of the analysand’s loathing/affection to be an iota of his derisible/commendable authority by association/disassociation with/from the Law as much as a projection of the latter’s traumatic relation to his own psychical object. Yet there remain in each of these eventualities the closure of preclusion that emanates from the psycho-analytic gestalt: the aetiological importance of instinctual reality as sole hermeto-logical monad. Not only set upon a circulation of interpretive trajectories but also set out towards the circularity of all philosophy issuing from the Cogito that produces psycho-analysis. After all, one must admit that several experiences remain without the threshold of coherence that psycho-analytic theories append to consciousness as it is. Human consciousness concretised through culture, even from its despairing infidelity to reality, and the reality of its infidelity to despair, must be raised against the gaze of the inert a-nalyst, the necrological entity of the Law which issues from him is not a bulwark against psychopathology, regression or fusion/ representation with/ of the mother or father[10].

‘Reduced form enjoyment spark of desire
The Ir-reduced of the Enjoyed, the intense Extinguished of the Desired
Are a mystical razor
An ante-essential rather than supra-essential state’

If as Desirings it is still possible to say of desire that it desires
Being (of) desire
It is suspended in-
Desired
The Desirings remain

I call Desirings the multitude (of) axioms
Inhabitants
Of the void beyond the Desired
On this side of the desire-Entity

Think in-Desired
Make Being void of desire
Prepare the dwelling of the Desirings

Of the Desired the axiom is never stated
Unless it is also the cause of the axiom
And insofar as it is

The axiomatics of Desirings adds nothing to the Desired
Just itself to itself
The axiom seen-in-full

Consider the fluxion of desired-desiring connections
Its suspension like a photograph
Reveals to the unclear side of the stream
A strict identity between the source and the mouth
The frozen flux of an eidetic Heraclitus
Frozen-in-One like a sky of eternal axioms

Desired is the non-moved and the non-moving
Desirings are the mobile or the flying moved once each time
Desire-desiring is the moved motor’


Spiritual consciousness, inasmuch as it is concretised by its persistence in the institutions and rituals of a culture, makes an analysand native to an associative field of spirituality as is commonly understood while resisting the quilting force of psycho-analytic theory. Or, as Roland (2011) puts it, dealing with South East Asian subjectivity in psycho-analysis: “If anything, clinical experience indicates that spiritual practices and experiences are a strong counterpoint to regression and childhood merger experiences with the mother in India and with the Hindu family[11]”. It would seem then that the vellities of analysis as they are informed by the resistance of a prevalent field of social realism, and its institutional semblabilities, are psycho-pathological in measuring what is not psycho-pathological; neurotic in the a-neuroticism of a coherently performative subject position; psychotic in diagnosing irreality in the exemplar adequation of a culture to the peculiar cathexis of its nonspatiotemporal gestalts of the world. All semblabilities are able and symbolic only in their interpellation into human relationships; the form of these relationships is more than the mere sum of their iterable exigencies and praxis, it is the sine qua non of analysability that rises to a place where the true content of the question is revealed beneath the shorn off libidinous gaze of the analyst. It is only under the prodigalised light of psycho-analytic theory that the foreignness of fantasmatic family resemblances among psychisms which seem a part of the same cloth come to shine independently as psychotic snot-rags; when the theory is stripped of its alienated gaze[12] and thrown into empathic interpassivity in the session it becomes possible to tell heat from glow, enlightenment from eccentricity. Then, the occult non-relation between the Occidental analyst and the Oriental analysand is one not mediated by the continuity of the phenomenological movement of human spirit through one immanent trajectory; rather, it is the interactive field between two discrete continua of normality/psychopathology of the whole spiritual self[13].

‘The One (of) desire gathers without division all possible (undividable)
The Being (of) desire gathers without division all possible division
Being is particular – oh Desirings
Particle is the partition with nothing to part
A partition from one end to another
Without mixing with the Desired as is
The undiscernable molecule
of desiring Desire

Desire receives thinking not from thinking itself
From the grace of the One (of) desire and then thinking
Thinking receives desire not from desire itself
From the grace of the in-Desired and then of desire[6]


Ultimately, the notion of thought beyond the figurative speech of desire as the grammalogue that gives itself to reflection as a gestaltic given demands receipt as mere and caustic scepticism. The cultivated distraction which inhibits the analyst’s bildung is not of the order of mere contingency, it officiates the nomologically anterior engram of the anal-yst who takes heed from the imaginary gestaltism of the big Other a-nalyst. Then, the a-nalyst whose provenance extends across the being of the analyst by penetrating his innermost intentions and subjective relation[s] to jouissance, by the very auspice of the concept of conceptual possibility, and its prodigal objet d’ analysis[19], is only a proposition entailed by the regime of the allmighty semblable of semblation, and its analytic adequacy. This semblable of semblation emerges as the predetermining horizon of the session and an inavouable subject position which the analyst occupies axiomatically.

 

NOTES

[1] Whistler, Daniel. Eds. Masciandaro, Nicola, & Thacker, Eugene. (2013). Glossator: Practice and Theory of the Commentary Vol. 7. “Silvering, or the Role of Mysticism in German Idealism”. Brooklyn, NY: The City University of New York.  P. 151- 186.

[2] Jung, Carl, G. Eds. Read, Herbert, Fordham, Michael, & Gerhard Adler. (1961). The Collected Works of C. G. Jung Vol. 4: Freud and Psychoanalysis. “The History of Psychoanalysis: The Aetiological Significance of the Actual Present”. New York, NY: Pantheon Books Inc.

[3] “The basis of the imaginary order is the formation of the ego in the “mirror stage”. Since the ego is formed by identifying with the counterpart or specular image, “identification” is an important aspect of the imaginary. The relationship whereby the ego is constituted by identification is a locus of “alienation”, which is another feature of the imaginary, and is fundamentally narcissistic. The imaginary, a realm of surface appearances which are deceptive, is structured by the symbolic order. It also involves a linguistic dimension: whereas the signifier is the foundation of the symbolic, the “signified” and “signification” belong to the imaginary. Thus language has both symbolic and imaginary aspects. Based on the specular image, the imaginary is rooted in the subject’s relationship to the body (the image of the body)”. Žižek, Slavoj. < http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm >.

[4] “Although an essentially linguistic dimension, Lacan does not simply equate the symbolic with language, since the latter is involved also in the imaginary and the real. The symbolic dimension of language is that of the signifier, in which elements have no positive existence but are constituted by virtue of their mutual differences. It is the realm of radical alterity: the Other. The unconscious is the discourse of the Other and thus belongs to the symbolic order. Its is [SIC] also the realm of the Law that regulates desire in the Oedipus complex. The symbolic is both the “pleasure principle” that regulates the distance from das Ding, and the “death drive” which goes beyond the pleasure principle by means of repetition: “the death drive is only the mask of the symbolic order.” This register is determinant of subjectivity; for Lacan the symbolic is characterized by the absence of any fixed relations between signifier and signified” Ibid.

[5] “This order is not only opposed to the imaginary but is also located beyond the symbolic. Unlike the latter, which is constituted in terms of oppositions such as “presence” and “absence”, there is no absence in the real. The symbolic opposition between “presence” and “absence” implies the possibility that something may be missing from the symbolic, the real is “always in its place: it carries it glued to its heel, ignorant of what might exile it from there.” If the symbolic is a set of differentiated signifiers, the real is in itself undifferentiated: “it is without fissure”. The symbolic introduces “a cut in the real,” in the process of signification: “it is the world of words that creates the world of things.” Thus the real emerges as that which is outside language: “it is that which resists symbolization absolutely.” The real is impossible because it is impossible to imagine, impossible to integrate into the symbolic order. This character of impossibility and resistance to symbolization lends the real its traumatic quality” Ibid.

[6] Laruelle, F.; Wolfe, C. (trans.). (1993). “Fragments of an Anti-Guattari.” Long News in the Short Century 4, pp. 158-164. Retrieved from <linguisticcapital.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/laruelles-fragments-of-an-anti-guattari/ >

Advertisements