BLACK KNIGHTS 07/08 Reverse the Fantasy

RhymenoceroS 1/3

INDEX AT: Traverse the Fantasy................................................................................................2

BLACK KNIGHTS 07/08 Reverse the Fantasy

RhymenoceroS 2/3

AT: Traverse the Fantasy

ZIZEK 05 [Slavoj, philosopher, failed Presidential candidate, Institute for Social Studies in Ljubljana, The Metastases of Enjoyment]
One of the fundamental propositions of Lacanian psychoanalysis is that this

sentence or thing which encapsulates the kernel of the subject’s being beyond imaginary identifications is irreducibly decentred with regard to the symbolic texture which defines the subject’s identity: the subject can confront this ex-timate kernel only at the price of his temporary aphanisis. This is what Lacan’s formula of fantasy designates: the subject’s self-erasure in the face of this strange, ‘ex-timate’ body (belief, desire, proposition) which forms the core of his or her being. Suffice it to recall how we blush red as a rose when our most intimide mode of enjoyment is publicly revealed: we would like to sink into the ground. In other words, aphanisis bears witness to the irreducible discord between the phantasmic hard core and the texture of symbolic narrative: when I risk confrontation with this hard core, ‘the story I have been telling myself about myself no longer makes sense’, ‘I no longer have a self to make sense of’ – or, in Lacanian terms, the big Other (the symbolic order) collapses into the small other, objet petit a, the fantasy-object. The extraction of object a from the field of reality gives this field its consistency: in aphanisis, the objet a is no longer extracted, it acquires full presence – in consequence, not only does the symbolic texture which constituted my reality disintegrate, but the very phantasmic kernel of my enjoyment is laid open, and thus comes under attack.
Perhaps, in a sense, there is

no greater violence than that suffered by the subject who is forced, against his or her will, to expose to public view the objet a in himself or herself. And, incidentally, therein resides the ultimate argument against rape: even if, in a sense, male chauvinism is right – even if some women somehow and sometimes do want to be taken roughly – for that very reason there is nothing more humiliating than to force a woman, against her will, to comply with her desire. This is what Shakespeare’s Coriolanus had in mind when he refused to ‘hear my nothings monster’d’:
he preferred to become a traitor rather than resort to public self-praise and lay open that ‘nothing’ which was the kernel of his being.

BLACK KNIGHTS 07/08 Reverse the Fantasy

RhymenoceroS 3/3

VIGHI 05 [Fabio, Dr., School of European Studies @ Cardiff University, “Lacan for Cinema Today: The Uncanny Pouvoir de la Verite, Psychoanalysis, Culture, &
Society December 2005 Volume 10 Number 3 Pages 235-251] Thus there is an instant in which reality comes forth, but then immediately thereafter it vanishes" (quoted in Chatman, 1985, p 141). This "reality that comes forth and vanishes", this nucleus of jouissance provided by the gaze, however, is not the "unattainable beyond" that condemns us to

it corresponds to the Lacanian objet a, the object-cause of desire whose elusiveness sets up the subject's fictional perception of reality. With reference to Thomas's relationship to objet a, what we should emphasise is that his desire to see turns into death-drive, that is, he is overwhelmed by a compulsion to over-identify with the blind spot responsible for his subjective perception of the world. The key point is therefore that Thomas's confrontation with the radical ambiguity of the blurred image is eventually what determines the collapse of his sense of selfhood (literally, Thomas collapses into objet a), as he is thrown into a kind of Hitchcockian estrangement, a condition of radical alienation that literally makes him a "stranger to himself".
the painful relativity of knowledge; rather, The devastating impact that the showing of gaze (objet a) has on the main character is perfectly captured the first time Thomas witnesses the existence of the dead body in the park: seconds after he has touched this body, we hear an uncanny, unlocatable background noise that seems to emanate from the rustling of the trees in the wind, and yet resembles the clicking of a camera or, possibly, a gun. The scene is reminiscent of the famous passage in Sartre's Being and Nothingness, commented upon by Lacan and functional to his theory of the gaze, where the existence of others is deduced from the surprising and shaming intervention of an "unseen gaze", introduced precisely by such noises as the rustling of foliage. However, Lacan points out that the problem with Sartre's gaze is that it is "not a seen gaze, but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the Other". For Lacan, by contrast, the gaze does not depend on what we hear (rustling of leaves, footsteps, etc.) but it pertains to the organ of sight; as such, it is something that the subject can encounter in the visual field, precisely insofar as we posit the subject of the visual field as "sustaining himself in a function of desire". The encounter with the gaze thereby signals a traumatic event for the subject "who wants to see", a short-circuit that radically undermines the allegiance between desire and the visual field: 'Is it not precisely because desire is established here in the domain of seeing that we can make it vanish?' (Lacan, 1998, pp 44-45). This

vanishing of desire, correlative to the showing of the gaze, implies nothing less than aphanisis, the collapse of the subject's symbolic efficiency, which is exactly what Thomas experiences at the end of his brave investigations.