before I studied lacan, I saw what I called "trans-textuality" as fundamental irreconcilability of autonomy & prehension, from which attempts to utilize it within your subjectivity (integrate autonomy and prehension), agency operates. I guess if I added that this trans-textuality is a kind of an empty point, where departing from it is a movement of distortion, that might be what you mean by reverse reflexivity? The split between autonomy and prehension is what exists (the slash), prior to the "S", in what Bracha Ettinger refers to as transjectivity. Always-already "being-towards-nonlife-within-life", "being-towards-birthing", jointness-in-differentiation..? That's where I came up with "trans-textuality" and position all textuality sort of 'between' or mediating subjectivity (in the older sense) and objectivity.
@@FG-fc1yz Actually, it is the gap between what is said and what is meant to be said, so it is the gap just before the subjective assertion into the meaning becomes an assertion into the symbolic.
@@FG-fc1yz yes, but... subject is not in the realm of the symbolic at all. The gap presumes symbolic identification first, but subject precedes symbolic identification, even imaginary identification - subjest is Real, the Other... so the subject is empty.
👍
before I studied lacan, I saw what I called "trans-textuality" as fundamental irreconcilability of autonomy & prehension, from which attempts to utilize it within your subjectivity (integrate autonomy and prehension), agency operates.
I guess if I added that this trans-textuality is a kind of an empty point, where departing from it is a movement of distortion, that might be what you mean by reverse reflexivity?
The split between autonomy and prehension is what exists (the slash), prior to the "S", in what Bracha Ettinger refers to as transjectivity. Always-already "being-towards-nonlife-within-life", "being-towards-birthing", jointness-in-differentiation..?
That's where I came up with "trans-textuality" and position all textuality sort of 'between' or mediating subjectivity (in the older sense) and objectivity.
Why can’t we think the subject is the gap in the symbolic?
Just thinking out loud here
it is!
@@FG-fc1yz Actually, it is the gap between what is said and what is meant to be said, so it is the gap just before the subjective assertion into the meaning becomes an assertion into the symbolic.
@@igormilicevic5884 isn't this the empty/formal excess of the symbolic, so the empty gap in the symbolic itself?
@@FG-fc1yz yes, but... subject is not in the realm of the symbolic at all. The gap presumes symbolic identification first, but subject precedes symbolic identification, even imaginary identification - subjest is Real, the Other... so the subject is empty.
@@igormilicevic5884 that's what I meant brah