Miller on Philosophical Anthropology
From “Another Lacan”: http://www.lacan.com/thesymptom/?p=1
Miller explains the structure of the non-neutral subject, which I will try to read transcritically with the Kantian subject of reason. Miller uses Lacan’s graph of the subject to explicate non-neutrality, or the failure in our momentum to know things in themselves (e.g. the world, God) theoretically:
S1-S2
$ - a
On the top register (S1-S2) is Kant’s “homogenous” field of mathematical antinomies wherein there is a regress of phenomena (P1-P2). This regress accounts for the impossibility of theoretically determining an ‘all’ of phenomena (the world-totality). Thus Miller claims that the top register’s “metonymy [the regress of signification, S1-S2] accounts for the impossibility of all the truth being said.”
On the bottom register ($-a) is Kant’s “heterogeneous” field of dynamic antinomies wherein the homogeneous field is totalized (e.g. the world, $) and yet some dynamic element of the field is excepted as a remainder (e.g. extramundane God, a). This doesn’t account for the impossibility of having absolute theoretical knowledge (e.g. of God) - it accounts for the impermissibility (or ‘subjective’ impossibility) of seeking absolute theoretical knowledge, for subjects of faith; subjects of faith find it shameful to try to theoretically know matters of faith alone because such is impossible according to their faith or subjective fantasy. Thus the bottom register’s metaphor (the condensation of signification S1-S2 into $) and subsequent loss or remainder (a) account for the impermissibility of all the truth being said by the subject. [We write $ instead of S for the condensation of S1-S2 because $, as a crossed-out S, signifies the failure of this condensation and hence the remainder, a.]
In other words, the structure of language or the Ucs. (“the unconscious is structured like a language”) is a homogeneous field of signifiers which accounts for the impossibility of reaching the absolute through the unconscious (as the early Freud thought he might). Under this model, fantasy’s metaphor accounts for the impermissibility (or subjective impossibility) of all the truth being said. That is to say, the structure of fantasy is a heterogenous field of phenomena (i.e. illusion and reality) which accounts for the subjective impossibility of reaching the absolute through fantasy - even ‘total fantasy,’ or psychosis, is ultimately tethered to the ('unendurable') real world.
If mathematical and dynamic antinomies are not the same, but are two halves of the reason drive, then the subject of the unconscious is only one half of subjectivity, the other half of which is the subject of fantasy. Either way one attempts to attain absolute satisfaction/knowledge fails, and the structure of the non-neutral subject is split between language (S1-S2, math homogeneity) and jouissance ($-a, dynamic heterogeneity). This is the philosophical anthropology that stands as the continuity between transcendental idealism and psychoanalysis.MhsgH!w~~60_35.JPG)
Miller explains the structure of the non-neutral subject, which I will try to read transcritically with the Kantian subject of reason. Miller uses Lacan’s graph of the subject to explicate non-neutrality, or the failure in our momentum to know things in themselves (e.g. the world, God) theoretically:
S1-S2
$ - a
On the top register (S1-S2) is Kant’s “homogenous” field of mathematical antinomies wherein there is a regress of phenomena (P1-P2). This regress accounts for the impossibility of theoretically determining an ‘all’ of phenomena (the world-totality). Thus Miller claims that the top register’s “metonymy [the regress of signification, S1-S2] accounts for the impossibility of all the truth being said.”
On the bottom register ($-a) is Kant’s “heterogeneous” field of dynamic antinomies wherein the homogeneous field is totalized (e.g. the world, $) and yet some dynamic element of the field is excepted as a remainder (e.g. extramundane God, a). This doesn’t account for the impossibility of having absolute theoretical knowledge (e.g. of God) - it accounts for the impermissibility (or ‘subjective’ impossibility) of seeking absolute theoretical knowledge, for subjects of faith; subjects of faith find it shameful to try to theoretically know matters of faith alone because such is impossible according to their faith or subjective fantasy. Thus the bottom register’s metaphor (the condensation of signification S1-S2 into $) and subsequent loss or remainder (a) account for the impermissibility of all the truth being said by the subject. [We write $ instead of S for the condensation of S1-S2 because $, as a crossed-out S, signifies the failure of this condensation and hence the remainder, a.]
In other words, the structure of language or the Ucs. (“the unconscious is structured like a language”) is a homogeneous field of signifiers which accounts for the impossibility of reaching the absolute through the unconscious (as the early Freud thought he might). Under this model, fantasy’s metaphor accounts for the impermissibility (or subjective impossibility) of all the truth being said. That is to say, the structure of fantasy is a heterogenous field of phenomena (i.e. illusion and reality) which accounts for the subjective impossibility of reaching the absolute through fantasy - even ‘total fantasy,’ or psychosis, is ultimately tethered to the ('unendurable') real world.
If mathematical and dynamic antinomies are not the same, but are two halves of the reason drive, then the subject of the unconscious is only one half of subjectivity, the other half of which is the subject of fantasy. Either way one attempts to attain absolute satisfaction/knowledge fails, and the structure of the non-neutral subject is split between language (S1-S2, math homogeneity) and jouissance ($-a, dynamic heterogeneity). This is the philosophical anthropology that stands as the continuity between transcendental idealism and psychoanalysis.