A good way, perhaps, to spend a lenten week
To a Lacanian:
What you need to cure about your hang-up with Lacan is that he exposed too much about the subject that the systems are now taking advantage of (see Traditionalism of Post-singularity in this blog) as was the same fate of Marx who exposed too much about the immanent logic of capital that capitalism has mastered to the extent of deferring its end with unbelievable efficiency in which deferral is constant. This is something you need to fix in order to save Lacan or you can choose to return psychoanalysis to Lacan but hopelessly regressive as with returning Marxism to Marx (see Marx and Philosophy post in this blog). The point is there is neither self (as Thomas Metzinger would argue in his phenomenal book Being No One) nor a reflexive loop to return to. But the solution is simple: Let us mind our own business!
To a Lacanian (encore):
Minding one’s business is of course the sort of nihilism that no philosophy can survive. Thus I say we submit the aporias of the self to the role of education.
By education I mean the radicalization of the awareness of second-order godding (see Marx and the Death of God in this blog) and the nonaporetic, nondifferential knowledge that there is no truth—that even the truths of philosophy conceal. If truth is what passes for as the Real then the Real is non-real. The Real though becomes an emergent event only after a certain auto-positioning and auto-presupposing (or App) relative to something anterior to thought is made, thus a nonphilosophical decision—the anterior as the Immanence of the One (in Francois Laruelle’s description of the anterior singularity as a unilateral duality, meaning, as one-in-One). This anterior may be described otherwise as an artificial singularity (echoing Laruelle’s notion of artificial philosophy) or Asing plus minus which as plus minus does not augment nor diminish what is in the first place totally indifferent to auto-positionality/auto-presuppositioning, the One.
Even this matheme escapes Lacan as he argued against philosophy in the effort of making psychoanalysis the true philosophy which makes him an automaton of philosophy raised to its extreme. What we need is to go beyond the structural circularity of thought that psychoanalysis defends in the form of an aporetic function, an autoreflexivity (here, the subject is unaware that it is simply cloning itself on behalf of the One, hence, an autoreflexivity that fails to know vis-a-vis the Lacanian subject that knows but knows nothing of the One [it knows only the circularity of the Real] as it fails to leap outside the loop of the paradoxical at the expense of the dynamism of the machinic) that simply extends the problems Kant even failed to comprehend. There is no such thing as autoreflexivity. The thing is only a madman who by the way is the complete model of the cured can claim he is the only reflexive being that exists thus the only being that exists.
To a true Christian, thus a non-Christian:
Beginning these high holy days let us take time to reflect on the power of prayer. My former priest-mentor who is a Jesuit once said to me that prayer is nothing in the order of prayer for it is more than the sum of its parts, the parts being the incorporeal assemblage of properties, like it or lump it they are neurochemical, that enunciate the words that make up a prayer, therefore even a word is more than the sum of its parts, the parts being the connectional workings of properties inside our bodies, each withdrawing from the other, as the high priest HEIdegger would have it: this notion of withdrawal is the key to understanding not just the power of this-more-than-just-word but also of who we are at the core of our being. Prayer reveals that we are more than the sum of what we know of ourselves, more than the sum of our past lives; we are the incalculable sum that is not in the order conceivable by any number, rather we are the machinic anomalies that break all kinds of summation. As Nietzsche would have it “we are one of those machines which can explode.” Let us then explode ourselves by praying obsessively until the day comes when prayer will be obsessing us. If prayer does this to us someday then it is proper to say that words, which make up a prayer, will love us obsessively, love us with the power of their creative embrace, their imaginative seduction that gives things their allure, that gives order to things, that gives the word the motive to confess its love for us, that gives the world the motive to welcome us into its womb and sedate it with our orgiastic cries, and what a bacchanalia of meanings this would be. It is then a time when salvation will cease to be just a word or an image of hope for we have become hope personified.
To which, as I expected, a true Christian, who happens to be my friend, replied:
“I’m glad you are now acknowledging the power of prayer!”