The NDP is a desire to be rid of the symptom of there being a semblant

12966197_10153510756066161_1962686717_nI’ve decided to play around with the following axiom: “the nom-du-pere is a desire to be rid of the symptom of there being a semblant.” I realize that this is a rather striking claim. I’m not even sure that it is worth much of anything, or even makes sense, in the end. Perhaps it is hogwash. But it is a preliminary hypothesis.

Remember that the oedipal moment which inaugurates neuroses is itself a metaphor. We shall refer to it as the “oedipal metaphor.” It is a metaphor because it installs desire through the prohibitive symbolic function of the father. The desire of the mother is substituted by a primary signifier, which we might denote as ‘1’.

But this substitution does not come out of thin air. Substitution is perhaps a response to a more primordial wound of there being a “semblant” which is nothing at all, that is, a minus-phi or an imaginary object. We might – although I can not be sure that this move is entirely accurate – refer to this as the “0” in its proper numeric imaginary dimension. Thus, the nom-du-pere is the flight in an altogether different direction, the direction of the symbolic, of there being a semblant which is nothing at all.

The desire of the metonymic chain to move from the first quilting point to the second, from 0 to 1, and from 1 to 2, and so on, is a symptom of the constitutive inability to live with the semblant.

There is the first order real, the real before there is even a ‘nothing’ object, or imaginary zero – thus I put the zero in parentheses. Metaphor is drawn using a dotted line. Metonymy is drawn using a double solid line.

Every displacement involves a symbolic flight from the metaphor, and every metaphor involves an attempt to find a solution to the real trauma {0}. But the metaphor fails at the moment of connection to the symbolic flight.

This model implies that metaphor and metonymy are linked processes, whereby the latter is connected to and not on an altogether different axis from the former.

I invite readers to correct me if at any moment I make a mistake in my logic.

Thus, metonymic symptoms are the result of some sort of “negation of negation” whereby the semblant as an existing nothing is negated for a symbolic transcendence.

I leave this for you to question or discuss.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s