This interative process of differance is, as I noted, the heart of the Borromean diagram. It is in the interplay of objet a with the 3 methodologies that produces not only change but progress
through a spiral dynamical process. No, we never fully arrive at full
consciousness of this unmarked, withdrawn or virtual ‘space’ (khora),
for it too, being immanent and constructed, also develops and grows
given development in the actually manifest domains. In a sense one
expression of it is the cognitive unconscious of humans. We can never
know it fully and yet we do make inroads and open it just a bit more
with each advance. Hence I take Flanagan’s criticism of ‘consciousness’
(in the Thompson thread) as sometimes too focused on the marked space of
what we are aware, and how we often mistake this for the unmarked space
beyond its reach and thus confuse it with an ultimate and transcendent
realm.
To assure myself I'm not completely off track I offer this excerpt from Zizek's "A place for a return to differance," Zizek being a close reader of Lacan.
"Objet a is therefore close to the Kantian transcendental object, since it stands for the unknown x, the noumenal core of the object beyond appearances, for what...can thus be defined as a pure parallax object.... More precisely, the object a is the very CAUSE of the parallax gap, that unfathomable X which forever eludes the symbolic grasp and thus causes the multiplicity of symbolic perspectives. The paradox is here a very precise one: it is at the very point at which a pure difference emerges—a difference which is no longer a difference between two positively existing objects, but a minimal difference which divides one and the same object from itself—that this difference 'as such' immediately coincides with an unfathomable object: in contrast to a mere difference between objects."
To assure myself I'm not completely off track I offer this excerpt from Zizek's "A place for a return to differance," Zizek being a close reader of Lacan.
"Objet a is therefore close to the Kantian transcendental object, since it stands for the unknown x, the noumenal core of the object beyond appearances, for what...can thus be defined as a pure parallax object.... More precisely, the object a is the very CAUSE of the parallax gap, that unfathomable X which forever eludes the symbolic grasp and thus causes the multiplicity of symbolic perspectives. The paradox is here a very precise one: it is at the very point at which a pure difference emerges—a difference which is no longer a difference between two positively existing objects, but a minimal difference which divides one and the same object from itself—that this difference 'as such' immediately coincides with an unfathomable object: in contrast to a mere difference between objects."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.