Structures of subjectivity

 

The name itself gives a woo-woo feeling, isn't it? Structures of subjectivity? It goes against logic, if subjectivity is subjective, if every human being has a different experience, how can a subjective experience have a structure? We call it subjectivity because it is subjective and not objective. Is "day and night" objective or subjective? It is subjective when you think about "day and night" because your location will determine the fact. Somewhere it is nighttime, somewhere it is day time, for a person who cannot see at all, there is no such thing as night and day in general. But there has to be some objectivity there, somewhere, the fact that we know night and day exist in itself is an objective fact, even if your location is the determinant factor of day and night, the fact remains that night and day exist. It was as if the structure had been laid down for us a priori. Even if there are 10 of you who deny the existence of "nighttime", nighttime inevitably exists anyway. Even if a blind person says that daytime does not exist, walking over a busy street during the day might be a lot more dangerous in comparison to walking over the same street at night because the amount of traffic at night is lower than during the day. So, even at the heights of denial, a blind person might risk his life walking over the same street during the day more, than during the night. On the other hand, the proposition could be that it would be more dangerous to walk over a street during the night because visibility is not as good at night as it is during the day. But, even in this argument we still have the fact of the split between "day and night", this fact still is the structural differentiation between the two. Even if the day is denied, there are still some objective facts that will remind us about some objectivity within this reality. Objectivity as of "you are more killable if you walk over a busy street during the day, without an ability to see what is going on around you because the sheer amount of possible killers (drivers) that are driving cars are just simply higher than at night". The end of the argument would still hold on to the fact that we are discussing the existence of day and night, if night and day would not exist, there would be no need to discuss it at all. Then, it seems that the denial of objectivity within reality becomes Ludacris.

Well then, can we find some anchoring within reality and if we can, through what? Well, it would make sense to say that we can find anchoring within this reality through language, isn't it? Language is what gives us a chance to communicate. Without language, we couldn't communicate, we couldn't understand each other, or even ourselves, your thoughts are already made "in the language" that you speak. So, as if, being exists, separately from language and then being gets thrown into language and then it is "being within language". Like you and me, beings in language, capable of comprehending what is written here. Following the psychoanalytic path, the fact that we are beings immersed in language would suggest that language itself is the anchoring point, a point of objectivity within subjectivity, the place where structure emerges. A psychoanalytic project would the project, that is like a tool, which helps to find the anchoring point within language. So, instead of thinking about psychoanalysis as a discipline which is there to explain mental health problems, we might look at it as a discourse which tries to explain how in the first place we managed to become speaking beings, and how we manage to become anchored in language. The father of psychoanalysis, Freud, described "repression", there is no scientific experiment that could explain "repression" or neurosis in the sense that you could catch a biological part in your body that is holding neurosis or repression. This is purely theoretical stuff, but maybe, within the theoretical stuff, we can find some basis that could help us explain our subjective experience. So, neurosis-repression, the idea would be that somehow we had to get hooked on language, somehow we had to internalize it. Neurotic, the one that internalised language through repression pays the price, the price of neurosis. Neurotic price is the prohibition, the law comes as a signifier which prohibits enjoyment, and neurotics suffer problems because of it, but, on a good note, they are anchored within the reality of language, because the law was repressed and internalised. On the other hand, the psychotic, because of the refusal of the prohibition, does not suffer the problems that the neurotic does but has a different kind of problems. Lacan expressed an idea in his seminar III The Psychoses, that a psychotic person is, in some sense, "free" because they are not bound by the same symbolic laws and norms that structure the experiences of neurotic individuals. However, this freedom comes at a great cost. Psychotic freedom comes from the fact of not being anchored within the system of law and language because of the foreclosure of knowledge. Paternal metaphor, as an anchoring system, which must be repressed as a phallic signifier of the law in order for the subject to be installed within the symbolic order is missing in psychosis. Neurotic is surrounded by a wall of prohibition, because the law was repressed it is always in the way. There is always a limit in front of a neurotic enjoyment, the symbolic rule of the paternal metaphor is an anchor which holds the subject integrated within the sanity of reality but at the same time it is the subject's hell because it prohibits the good life for the subject. The good life seems so close as if you could touch it with your hand, but you can never do it, because there is a wall, that wall is the wall of sanity but at the same time it is the wall of hell. In order to fight that wall of prohibition, which is following you around like a dead weight all the time, you use the technique of fantasy, in the most literal sense. In your fantasy, relationships are possible, and the actualization of ideas is possible, but in reality, nothing seems as great as it does in the fantasy. And even when you convince yourself that it is possible, somewhere down the line, you reach a limit which stops your ascension towards the true actualization of the fantasy. So, as you have seen in my first example of "denial of day or the denial of night", the night and day in themselves will exist regardless of your subjective opinion of their existence. This shows us that there is a predeterminant principle in which we have appeared, the principle in which we exist has its own predetermined structure, but what about the psychoanalytic dimension? The dimension of subjective structures that I have just mentioned, aren't we able to perceive another structure? Not the structure of reality in which we exist, but some sort of symbolic structure which in some weird way is governing our subjective experience. This structure governing our psychic reality would be the triad of Neurosis, Psychosis, and Perversion. The structure of our relation to the signifier, language, law and knowledge. Every structure relates to knowledge differently because every presymbolic entity internalizes knowledge of the law differently. The internalization of the knowledge of the law is the moment that creates the structure of subjectivity, either a structure is integrated into the symbolic order - neurosis, or a structure which rejects the symbolic order - psychosis. The third structure - Perversion is interesting and debatable within the Lacanian circles. Some analysts say that it does exist, others, that it does not exist. Those analysts who think that it does not exist ascribe Perversion to the structure of Psychosis. If thinking through the existence of the structure of Perversion, it would make sense to get back to basics. The neurotic structure is the structure which accepts the importance of the law but is rebellious against the father's law, lack is fully operative within this structure. Psychotic structure is the structure which does not include the importance of the father's law in its functioning, because of that reason psychotic structure functions separately from the symbolic order, using the imaginary order as the basis for its mechanisms, and lack is non-operative within this structure. The perverse structure is the structure which realised the father's law but rejected it anyway, the separation between the mother and the child was not complete, and the child remained the mother's phallus. Lack is partially operative within this structure, pervert knows "he is not the phallus" but does it as he would be the phallus, anyway. The structure of perversion is very close to femininity because the feminine position in relation to the phallus is "being it", while the masculine position would work through "having it", two different operational modes of enjoyment. The neurotic knows that "he is not it" which is why he is trying to "have it" (Phallic enjoyment), because "it" was taken away from him through the separation from his mother by his father. The psychotic does not know that "he is not it", because in psychosis the comprehension of "it" does not exist. Lack was not inscribed because the chance to know "it" (the symbolic order of the father) was foreclosed because the full separation between the mother and the child did not happen for whatever reason, the paternal metaphor was not inscribed into operation. On the other hand, the pervert knows that he is not it because the moment of castration did appear, but for whatever reason the pervert managed to become a pervert because castration was not fully operative. So instead of understanding that he is "not it" and becoming neurotic through the mechanism of symbolic castration, the pervert says "I certainly know I am not it, but I will do it anyway", I will be "It" anyway. Slavoj Zizek gives a perfect example of perversion, along the lines of the father's words for the child when the child should understand that the mother has other priorities in life such as sleeping with the child's father and not with the child. Father says to the child "Go to your room, this is our room (parents room) and you (the child) have to go to sleep in your room. After the statement the father takes the child away to his room, but, while taking the child away from the parent's room, the mother signals to the child with her gestures that she still cares for the child more than the father. As if rejecting the father's law by saying to the child "You are still my phallus, you are the most important one" and even though I have to be with your father now, the only thing that I truly want to do is to be with you. So, instead of accepting "the law" of separation, the child becomes the governor of the law, he becomes the law itself, the one that managed to transgress the father's law. Perversion becomes an embodiment of "being it" (feminine mode of enjoyment), because to transgress the father's law you have to become the law itself, you have to take the law into your own hands. This operational structure shows us that it works in relation to the "Phallic" signifier, which would lead to an understanding of the unconscious in relation to the inscription of the "Phallic" signifier.   

 

Non-Inclusiveness of Phallic Enjoyment

 

Why the paternal order is non-inclusive? If we look at the main representatives of the paternal order such as the church, army, prison and other similar gatherings. What are the Paternal principles that govern those institutions? In the church discourse, homosexuality is prohibited, only straight males can exist, and only the path of the connection between the woman and the man is the correct path. A similar thing could be noticed in the army, homosexuality is not a thing that will make a soldier into a good soldier in the other soldier's eyes. The same thing is visible within the prison system, homosexuals will most likely be held in separate wings of the prison because the ideology within the prison works by the same principle as the ideology of the army or the church. This ideology could be interpreted as an ideology based on the strict phallic principle, an ideology based on the fact that men are men and women are women, and sexual connection between the same sex is prohibited. Of course, today's political climate is changing the whole structure, the world is becoming more inclusive and the things that were not accepted 20 to 50 years ago, are accepted now. But, the point of the matter of this text is the ideological structure itself. How can non-inclusivity and rigidity be explained? Let's leave the "word of God" from the religious books aside for now, as the main reason why the order of the Father is not inclusive and instead use a psychoanalytic perspective to understand this intricacy. This leads us back to the "Mommy-Daddy-Baby" triangle, where it all began, where the subjective emerged because of the master signifier. The master signifier in the psychoanalytic perspective would be "Phallus", a symbolic object that the father holds, as the entity of authority.  The phallic signifier is the signifier that inscribes "lack" into our being, but in itself is not lacking anything. It is the symbolic object that represents the opposite, it represents "non-lack" as the non-lackiness of the father's authority. The symbolic object "the phallus" was passed on from generation to generation, from the father to his son, then from the son once he became the father to his son and the lineage continues. While in reality, this object "phallus" does not exist as a biological object, nevertheless it still exists in the symbolic dimension, as the signifier of power and authority. But if the symbolic object "phallus" does not exist in reality and still circulates around as the inscriber of the unconscious, it means that neither of the father and sons actually ever had it. It was more like an imaginary object that created masculinity, the prohibitor of enjoyment and the inscriber of neurosis. What does it have to do with the non-inclusivity of the paternal order? The representative signifier of the paternal lineage is the "non-lacking" signifier, it signifies a non-lack, of authority, power and strength. Within the psychoanalytic tradition, this signifier of non-lack is the signifier which inscribes heterosexual relations. The boy chooses to follow his father's footsteps while idealising the father because he wants to be like him. While, at the same time, hating the father, because the father prohibits the child's immersion within the mother, as separating the mother from the child because there are times when the father wants to do his business with the mother. The whole masculine posture seems to be based on the non-lack of the father's authority and his ability to take Mommy's attention from the child when needed because he "the father" is the authority. This situation is what allows the mother to keep the father alive in her daily discourse. When the child grows a bit older, only mentioning the father's name is enough for the mother to discipline the child without any physical force, as if the paternal metaphor was inscribed in the child's psyche and the father's name represents the order and rules. Even if the father is not present in that particular moment, the mother can say "I will tell your Father", or "What would your father say if he saw you acting this way" to correct the child's behaviour, because the child knows that daddy's name means business. Jacques Lacan distinguished two types of enjoyment, "Phallic" and "Supplementary". The "phallic" enjoyment is based on the phallic signifier and the "supplementary" enjoyment is not based on the phallic signifier. What does it tell us about enjoyment? That women are the only beings in the world that can enjoy "through" the phallic signifier and without it. This logic would explain a feminine ability to use both types of enjoyment. Her own, feminine type of enjoyment, which is not based on the phallic signification and the enjoyment that is based on the phallic signification. On the masculine, there is only one type of enjoyment which is "phallic enjoyment", men, have no clue what "feminine enjoyment" means, they can only find that out by asking women about it. What does it mean to enjoy as a woman does? But, this phallic enjoyment would most likely include only heterosexual males, as the only ones who can only enjoy through the phallic signifier. On the other hand, homosexual men in some sense would be closer to the feminine type of enjoyment, as well as transgender individuals, as males who decided to become women. As if homosexuality and transgenderism stepped out of the dimension of symbolic castration and can enjoy through the dimension of non-castrated enjoyment. This step out of the dimension of castration places homosexual and transgender individuals into the realm of non-restricted enjoyment. Simple daily rituals that can be noticed in everyday life could work as explanations for how phallic enjoyment works. For example an inflating moment of when one person stands up and pays for the whole dinner of let's say five individuals. As signifying "having it", "possessing the symbolic object" a non-lacking individual that has no problems with money and can pay for everyone without any issues. Another example could be presidential meetings that you might observe on TV, where world leaders, meet to discuss political matters. An interesting moment to be observed in those meetings is the etiquette regarding holding doors open or walking through narrow pathways. One of the leaders "the one who possesses the phallus" will try to allow all the others to go first, as a sign of respect generally, but if looked at from the perspective of lack, it would signify a non-lacking individual allowing all the others, "lacking" individuals to go first, as if "being the last one which will walk through the door is not an issue" because I possess the phallus.

 

 

Meaning

 

There is a split between a word and its meaning, if a word "table" is said, in itself, a word is just a word, until meaning is ascribed to it. This split is the interesting part of the equation, if we think about the split in neurosis and psychosis, a split is non-existent in psychosis, while fully operational in neurosis. The bar which splits the word and its meaning, which splits the subject itself is the law. Neurotic was affected by the law, which is why, he was given a chance to live in the realm of sanity. On the other hand, the psychotic has not been affected by the law, and the signifier has not reached his being to affect it. The split between the word and its meaning was made into a neurotic being, meaning and enjoyment were prohibited for the neurotic because of the operationality of the law. Sanity has its price, it hurts, while meaning is not permitted, because of the prohibition of the law. The stronger the operational procedure of the prohibition, the harsher the symptoms of the subject's existence. One of DJ Tiesto's albums was called "In Search of Sunrise", in terms of a neurotic structure, it would be "in search of meaning", the sunrise of meaning, which might show up, someday. However, the neurotic subject is not consciously aware of the fact that his being is being depressed from the top by the weight of the bar which splits the signifier between the word and its meaning, between meaning and being, between existing in meaning or existing in meaninglessness. What about the side of the psychotic structure, where the bar which towers over the top in order to depress the being of the subject and split it in half is non-operational? In this case of structure, there is no "In Search of Sunrise", because sunrise is everywhere, meaning can be made anywhere and from anything. Crisis of meaning versus overabundance of meaning, almost like reality versus fantasy. As if because the enjoyment of the psychotic was not prohibited, a non-prohibited part of reality comes back as delusions or inner voices, as separate beings, because the separation was not inscribed in the first place. All these problems, either psychotic or neurotic, become seemingly more understandable if seen through the lens of relation to language and the operationalization of the law itself. If the flow of the river, the same as the flow of consciousness, can truly recognise its flow, as itself, only after meeting an obstacle which in some way affected the flow, then psychoanalytic structures of subjectivity would be a perfect framework for understanding the ground which is erected on groundlessness of being. An obstacle, which is the law, was what stopped the flow of consciousness and made the baby aware of the fact that there is a limit, that there exists something that will make the baby subject to negativity. As if the bar between the word and its meaning is the necessary limit that creates meaning itself, without the limit that splits subjectivity, there would be no meaning, because there would be no limit. If phallic enjoyment is based on the flow of consciousness through the rigid structures of the phallic signifier, then, on the opposite side lies feminine enjoyment, a limitless type of enjoyment, not confined within the laws of prohibition and the anxiety of performance. 

 

Phallic Enjoyment and Male Dominance Hierarchies

 

Phallic enjoyment being anchored in the signification of the phallic signifier flows through the signifier because of the anchoring in it. The phallic signifier is the signifier that inscribes lack but in itself is not lacking, on the contrary, it is the representative of non-lack. The masculine ideal is based on one image of a non-lacking male figure such as Superman for whom there is no competition, he is the strongest being in the universe. On the other hand, there are two images of feminine ideals, such as the Virgin Mary and Madonna, two opposite sides of feminine perfection, while masculine perfection has only one side Superman (non-lacking ideal of super performance). Firstly, on the feminine side, the Virgin Mary represents the innocence and purity of femininity, the unbound inclusion of all beings, and the insatiable love of the mother. Secondly, on the feminine side, Madonna represents the sex object, the desired object of masculinity, the embodiment of male sexual fantasy. While men have to navigate towards only one ideal golden boy image, women, have to navigate towards two ideal images that embody complete opposition. Every hierarchical structure could be explained through a non-lacking phallic signifier, prison system, army, or capitalism. Dominant males at the top of the hierarchy are in possession of most of the goods and are controlling the game. In a capitalist society those who can outperform others, win.

 

Structuration of Phallic Enjoyment

 

The triad - (Mother, Father, Child), the connection between the Mother and the child was disjointed by the Father. The father's intervention prohibited the child's enjoyment of the mother and the mother's enjoyment of the child, fathers law dissected the child into a separate part, making him a separate being. The moment of the father's authority, the phallic intervention of the signifier as a paternal metaphor was the original moment of the beginning of the structure of phallic enjoyment. Symbolic castration is what installs the child into the symbolic order, it is what turns on the repression. The moment of castration is the original moment of phallic signification, phallic signification propelled the engine of phallic enjoyment. By being hurt by the fact that the father is stronger than the child and mommy truly belongs to him (the father), the child learns to enjoy through the prohibition. Neurosis, through repression, opens a place within the symbolic order in the child's unconscious, the inscription to the symbolic order was made through the prohibition. Within the prohibition, there is an aspect of power, an enjoyable power, but that power is only enjoyed from the side of the father because the child is a powerless being. But, because the child's enjoyment was prohibited by the father's power, prohibition inscribes that aspect of power into the unconscious mechanism of the child. The neurotic problem becomes a blind enjoyment of the prohibition itself, which further down the line in life leads to an inability to do the "thing", whatever that "thing" might be while hating it and unconsciously enjoying the hate itself. So, the prison in your mind, where enjoyment is prohibited to you and which is driving you crazy, actually is part of phallic enjoyment, but just one side of it. The hate towards the prohibition translates into the hate towards the father because the father was the prohibitor of the enjoyment between the mother and the child. The other side of phallic enjoyment is the power aspect, it connects enjoyment and power because the father is capable of separating the mother and the child because of his ability to perform. A non-performative father is not worthy of the name of the law and the mother's respect. The law in itself is the original power signifier, law as language existed before you and I have appeared, and the father is the representative of that ultimate law within the family.

​

 

                                                                              Suffering of the Masculine Ego 

​

Language, being a separate system, encloses us inside a certain container. Why is it a separate system? It is seemingly separate from us because once we are born, we don't know what language is, we are not able to understand language and we are unable to speak, but, language in itself is like an alien, living his or her own existence, separately, without a body. Our bodies become the bodies of language, language takes over us, invades us and takes control and in psychoanalytic thought, language could be seen as something that speaks through us. If enough attention is paid while in the act of speaking, speech, becomes a very interesting phenomenon, it feels as if something is talking either for you or through you because you aren't fully conscious of how the process of speaking happens, the constructions of sentences are just happening. We evolve as human beings within the realm of a separate system, and within that system, we become beings with egos. Our ego structure is structured within the same container in which we are enclosed, the container of language, it is like an invisible cage in which we live, but, we never think about the fact that we live in it. Ego might be described as an idea of yourself, you, as an entity, have an idea of what you are, and that idea is described in language, you are capable of creating an idea of yourself because you are capable of using language, the birth of the ego is within language. Furthermore, we could distinguish the "autobiographical self" and a "sense of self", linguistic dimension would be the dimension of the autobiographical self. In psychoanalysis, language is a fundamental tool, generally, the only tool that the psychoanalyst has. Anchoring in language is the basis of an egoic structure, which in Lacanian terms splits into three positions (Neurosis, Psychosis, Perversion), three different ways of relating to language, or more precisely relating to the signifier (The Master-Signifier), the signifier that prohibited our heavenly existence in the union with our mother's. The interesting question would be "How does the system of language and the inner workings of linguistic structures relate to the suffering of the ego?". The fundamental basics of psychoanalytic understanding about the suffering of the ego might be portrayed in this way: The master signifier (Phallic signifier), the signifier which signified authority and the existence of rules which prohibited the freedom of lawless existence. We, as human beings, enter our human existence through the entrance into language, language itself, becomes the basis of our desires and fantasies. If a "signifier" can be a word, a gesture, a whole sentence, or even a gaze and the "signified" is the meaning that any of those possible signifiers elicits, then the word "signifier" is simply a basic unit of language. A unit that signifies something, that unit approaches the human being, once we are approached by the signifier we are involved in the "encounter" with the signifier and that encounter leaves a mark on us. That mark in psychoanalysis is the mark of elicitation of subjectivity, because of that mark of the signifier, we become beings, living in linguistic subjectivity. If the signifier is given its importance, then the whole theory of understanding suffering could be based on the signifier itself. The signifier of prohibition has signified authority, because of our submission to that authority, we had to obey the rules and more precisely, we were too small and too weak to even have a choice, if we wanted to submit to the motherly or fatherly authority or not, it was imposed on us. A painful experience, but, an experience nonetheless, this experience left a mark and that mark is the consequence of meeting the authoritarian signifier. Because the phallic signifier prohibited the uninterrupted enjoyment between the mother and the child, it became part of the structure. The child had no idea that the father is just another man, a lacking man, as all men are, lacking, there is a hole of pain in every one of us. A metaphorical hole of pain, pain that could be caused by any perception of lack within yourself, such as: "not having a sufficient amount of money for living", "our looks, that we are not satisfied with", "our height - you might feel too tall or too short", "eye colour - you might dislike your eye colour", "teeth - too big, too small, yellow", "feeling like a coward because you were not able to be brave when you thought you should have been", "feeling guilty" or any other possible example that is the lack which is not necessarily visible to other people, but, only visible to you, yourself. Because the child had no clue what lack is, the authoritarian signifier was what inscribed lack into the child, but because the lack was inscribed by the authority figure, the authority figure itself did not seem lacking, our reception of the prohibition was equivalent to an assault (This is how you should eat, this is how you should poop, this is how you should sit, these are the things that you cannot do - the rules that the powers of the law inflicted on us). This metaphorical inscription of the authoritarian signifier seems to be what became a "masculine ideal". There is one ideal running the masculine ego, which is the phallus, a non-lacking authoritarian signifier. Because we have started the existence of our subjectivity from an encounter with an authoritarian, non-lacking, master signifier, it became the signifier that functions as the unconscious. "There is one signifier in the unconscious and that is the phallus" - this sentence describes the psychoanalytic perspective on the inscription of the unconscious. The ideal of the masculine ego comes to be based purely on the non-lacking phallic signifier. On the other hand, a feminine ego, even though it is based on the same reaction to the prohibition as the masculine ego, changes its object from the father onto the mother. The choice of the male child becomes "having it" because the boy has a penis, he cannot be the phallus, but can have the phallus, the function of the "symbolic accumulation of the symbolic object" becomes the driving force of the ego. While the feminine choice becomes "being it" because the girl does not have a penis, she cannot have the phallus, but, she can "be it", she can become the symbolic object herself, and the function of "being the symbolic object" becomes the driving force of the ego. The deeper and more complex dynamics of this structural positioning become the determinant factor of heterosexuality and homosexuality within the realm of psychoanalytic thought.
Superhero movies tell us all about it: "Superman", "Batman", "Spiderman", "Hercules" and many other figures are portrayed to us as the representors of the non-lacking masculine ideal. The superhero figures are superheroes because of their ability to deal with or deny their lack. Superman is the best example, the only lack that Superman truly has, is his weakness for kryptonite, if you want to win against Superman, you have to use kryptonite, without kryptonite, you have no chance. The greenstone kryptonite which is the weapon used against Superman is like a reminder for Superman that "lack does exist" and the meeting with that thought absolutely destroys Superman, as if the greenstone would be an embodiment of Superman's realisation of his lack. He is absolutely invincible as long as he does not have to deal with his own lack. A neurotic masculine ego is based on the fundamental equation of the double bind. The masculine ideal, the same as the phallic signifier itself, represents a non-lack, an embodiment of that non-lack is Superman and the only thing that can kill Superman is meeting his meeting with his lack, which in the movie is represented by the green crystal of kryptonite. The masculine ideal holds such strength because it is based on the non-lacking signifier of authority. For those humans, that function in relation to the signifier via the mechanism of "having it",  living lives in which they have to accept their lack, becomes harder, than committing suicide. Life of lack becomes harder than death, that's how deep the rabbit hole goes when it comes to our psyche. Because we are beings that function via language, an understanding of how language itself affects our understanding of the world becomes a seemingly valuable tool. In 2022 the total number of male suicides in the United States was 39,255. Men in the United States died because of suicide at a rate of 3.85 times higher than women. Interestingly, the reasons for male suicides were mainly based on job loss, relationship breakdowns, or financial pressures—rather than long-term mental health conditions. In the UK, in 2022, there were 6,588 registered suicide deaths, three-quarters of these were men. If we could translate these numbers into the dimension of language, we might say that the signifier which made men also killed men. Our lack is our biggest enemy, it is like the kryptonite to the Superman, we choose death instead of existence with lack. 
We can track this back to the absolute beginning of the creation of the subject. The fact that the authoritarian signifier was the signifier that inscribed lack and elicited the mechanism and the ideal by which we live.  

 

                                                                           Relationality of the Signifiers 

​

Signifiers elicit meaning through their relationality to one another. The signifier "night" makes sense because "day" exists, the signifier "table" makes sense because there is a background, a place where the table might belong, the signifier "male" makes sense in relation to the signifier "female". There is a relational opposition between the signifiers, it is not the signifier itself that creates meaning, but the signifier's relation to other signifiers that creates meaning. What about the "Phallic" signifier, the non-lacking master signifier of authority? The master signifier does not have a clear meaning, even in relation to other signifiers it signifies authority over all the over signifiers because it signifies authority and prohibition. As in the commandments of God, we have received the commandments, we have received the rules, and we have received the explanation of what happens if we do not abide by the rules. But, we do not know who is the entity that determined the rules because the description of that entity is within the same bag of signifiers that relate to one another but the entity itself "God" does not have any relation to the signifiers because it would be logical to think that it is the creator of signifiers, it is the creator of rules, but the rules that were created via the signifiers that relate to one another does not apply to the creator of those rules. The phallic signifier or master signifier (God) does not relate to the rules and relations that determine the relationality of the signifiers that we abide by. Jacques Lacan said that "there is no meta language", it could be translated into the fact that there is no guarantor of the rules, and there is no separate language that could describe language. If we imagine the system of language with all the possible signifiers as the closed system which is locked in the bag, then, we cannot comprehend what is outside of that bag, there is no outside language that could describe the actual bag. That is why none of the descriptions of "God" can ever point to the actuality of the supreme entity, in Zen tradition it is said that "A finger can only point to the Moon" which could be interpreted as the fact that we can only point towards the truth of the unreachable, language can only point at the ultimate truth of "The Real" but it cannot reach it. The supreme entity "God" would be outside of the bag, outside of all the possible signifiers that we live in and through. So, the authoritarian signifier is the signifier that isn't truly included in the bag of all possible signifiers, non-relationality is the basis of the commanding Master, it is an exception to the rules. Neurosis, as a structure based on the meeting with the master signifier with the consequence of the inscription of lack within the subject, is based on the existence of lack, lack has been inscribed because the authoritarian signifier introduced itself via the signification of rules and authority. The psychotic structure is the structure that managed to avoid the introduction to the authoritarian signifier, or, have met the authoritarian too late and lack was not inscribed. The perverse structure is the structure that has been introduced to the prohibitor but managed to avoid being put into a fully lacking position. Neurotic sanity is based on the traumatic prohibition, a double bind which inscribed lack but turned on the engine which is based on the accumulation of the symbolic object which leads to rejection of lack, masculine existence becomes based on the masking of lack by accumulating the symbolic object to compensate for the symbolic castration. When the existence of the subject is based on the accumulation of the symbolic object in order to compensate for the inscribed lack, the inability to fully compensate for the lack via the mechanism of accumulation of the symbolic object becomes equivalent to death. 

​

​

                                                           Son's enjoyment within the Order of the Father

​

An inscription into the symbolic order caused neurosis. It was the price to be paid for sanity, or, if looked at from another perspective, a repressive insanity. The only point of reference within the confines of enjoyment for the son, was phallic enjoyment, enjoyment that was flowing through the master signifier. An invisible order of language was directing the son's life and enjoyment was possible only while the harness was attached to the signifier. Only within the confines of these invisible circumstances, the feeling of happiness was produced. Certain moments in life felt worthy of his existence, but those moments could never be fully explained, there was an unexplainable stain, and whenever the boy managed to make that stain magically appear, he felt the worthiness of existence. Empty holidays or birthday parties were never his thing, such moments always made him feel like something was missing, as if something was missing from this mathematical equation. Neither alcohol nor drugs could ever fill that gap, but, only certain moments in the life of the son were the moments that felt complete, moments worthy of masculine existence. Empty gaps within the symbolic structure of existence were not allowed, and empty enjoyment was prohibited. The boy had no clue that when he was a baby, he took a masculine position in relation to the phallic signifier, his position was based on "having it", he couldn't choose for himself, it was chosen for him. An invisible master was running his life, the law as an invisible authority was inscribed into his being, and the fatherly symbolic system kept the son's psyche away from the psychotically structured insanity. Symbolic castration was the cause of this whole scenario, paternal authority showed up at the right time and inscribed a symbolic master into the son's psyche. Freedom of feelings or the freedom to feel and express what they feel belonged to women only, and the rigid robotic structures of cold metal belonged to men, they were building the invisible symbolic order, as if constructing the systems of language in the actual reality. The son slowly grew older and year after year he was trying to figure out life, he was trying to understand the system that was governing his life. 
When the son would go to the night club with his friend, he never wanted to dance, but, he wanted to own such a club himself, where other people could dance and enjoy. A sense of achievement was the only currency that truly governed the son's life, the sense of achievement was based on the symbolic structures of the fatherly order. 
Men were collectively building structures in the world that were governing their minds, phantasmatic truth of the unconscious was actualising itself in the reality of everyday life.  

​

​

 

                                           The Peacefulness Within the Realm of Hard Work and Purpose

​

Peace is only possible within the realm of the symbolic order, within the realm of connections, within the realm of the Other. But this type of peace is opposite to the psychotic peace, within the psychotically structured peace, otherness is triggering because the sense of lack by the authoritarian prohibition was not inscribed, so, otherness has to be removed from the picture for the psychotic to be able to exist in peace. The pressure can trigger the psychotic structure and lead to a psychotic break (the ultimate loss of the sense of reality within the realm of fantasy which appears real in reality), the pressure of otherness is triggering because otherness is not integrated within the psychotic structure. Psychotic peace is the peace of the Eastern Practices, where the idea of existence is based on disengagement from the symbolic order, the realm of thinking is the realm of Maya, the realm of illusions and lies. 
On the opposite side of psychotic peace is neurotic peace, in particular, obsessional neurotic peace, which lies within the drive and action because the main Other for the obsessional neurotic is the object cause of desire, a linguistic object which became the cause of the subject desire, an impossible desire. A neurotic structure is based on the integration of the Other, otherness is accepted in neurosis, and lack is integrated. Or more precisely, the neurotic subject was born through repression of the fact of authoritarian otherness, being of the neurotic was excavated by the signifier, the neurotic engine is working underground. Because of the excavation of the neurotics being, his position as an obsessional neurotic is based on "being in thinking", consciously running after the object in thinking, and, if thinking stops, the obsessional feels dead because the engine of neurosis is planted in the place where the obsessionals being would have been. Obsessional neurosis is the neurosis of capitalism, it functions by running after it, chasing the object, filling in the gaps with action or with speech. The structure of obsessional neurosis is the structure which governs capitalism, obsessionals want more and they want it now, the more desire, the better, desire for its own sake. The son, being the representative of the symbolic order of the father wanted more, the same as his father did, he also wanted more. Because enjoyment was only possible via the symbolic order, such things as Eastern practices, meditation and any other discipline that preached psychotic peace were the opposition to what the son needed. The main problem that all the obsessionals collectively encountered was that nobody wanted to give up and when nobody wants to give up, war is inevitable. Because neurosis was based on the repression of the authoritarian signifier and everybody who was neurotically structured was capable of enjoying only through the perverse need of the signification of power, the world of the son's was based on power relations. The immovable symbolic structure which governed the world was based on the neurotic structuration of the psyche. 
The political situation in which the son lived represented the duality of the structural psychic split, one side represented ethical morality and inclusiveness and the other side represented the power relations and the rejection of lack. Those humans, whose psychical structuration was based on the integration of the fatherly prohibition, were the representatives of the law, which meant they were the ones who rejected lack. The other political side seemed to be based on lack itself, lack was what connected everyone who was not following the fatherly prohibition of the law. Those who celebrated the repressiveness of sexuality and were on the side of the fatherly prohibition were more likely to be religious and believers in the creator and the rules imposed on us by him. While those who were against the fatherly prohibition were more likely to be non-believers. Because of their non-belief in the ultimate law, they were more prone towards being the advocates of the freedom of sexuality and the inducers of political movements that were fighting for the freedom of the individual. An interesting truth was that both sides were truly fighting for freedom, but freedom itself was understood differently by both sides. For those who were on the side of the fatherly prohibition and repressed the existence of the law, freedom meant an ability to enjoy through the prohibitory power of the symbolic order, phallus was what held the structure in place. But, because the phallus was what held the structure in place, the structure was based on the signification of power and the rejection of lack. The other political side understood freedom through a different pathway, a pathway that was not based on the flow of enjoyment through the phallic signifier. Freedom was understood as freedom of an ability to flow freely, without being harnessed to the signifier. The situation was particularly similar to what Claude Lévi-Strauss discussed in his book Structural Anthropology, Strauss explored the perspectives of humans living in one community. He noticed that the perspectives differed within the same tribe, and different observers had different opinions on the structure of the village. Claude Lévi-Strauss emphasised structure, it seemed to him that differences in perspective were not random but followed a certain pattern. Jacques Lacan used Claude Lévi-Strauss ideas in order to explain his own, psychoanalytic ideas. Jacques Lacan's ideas in the field of psychoanalysis, such as psychical structures based on the relationality to the signifier followed the path of Claude Lévi-Strauss's ideas of structural anthropology. When Jacques Lacan differentiated between neurosis and psychosis, between the integration of the signifier, the relationality of being to the law which creates the human subject, the differential path between the two psychical mechanisms (psychosis/neurosis) would be based on completely different perspectives on life. One of Claude Lévi-Strauss's examples was how the people of Brazil different individuals from the Bororo tribe, who all lived in the same village, have seen the structure of their village, differently. One group of individuals saw the village based on the circular structure, while the other group saw the village split into two halves. The same tribe, the same village, individuals living together in the same area, no social media or technology via which the minds of the people can be taken over by certain discourses like it is in today's societies. If we exclude the possible influence of social media and technology on people's perspectives about their village, then what do we have left as the possible causes for this type of differentiation between the perspectives of the tribals? Probably the most primitive answer would be that some ancestors of the tribal people have hurt others in the past and because of the intergenerational trauma, ones hate the others and that is what created the split, or maybe some of the tribal people were richer than the others, so the rich seen other rich people as one of them and the poor ones were excluded to a separate group and that is why the differentiation between the perspectives have appeared. These answers are relevant and I guess every possible answer would have a part of truth in it, but if thought about psychoanalytically, isn't this the particular moment which portrays the split of subjectivity via the encounter of the signifier, it is as if some members of the tribe felt more divided than others because they were literally more divided by language than others. Those who were divided by the signifier felt that the whole village is divided into two halves, while those who were not affected by the signifier, as the representation of the undivided group, have seen the village in the circular structure, structure which was more connective than the divided structure. This was the portrayal of the split between neurosis and psychosis and that split leads us into an interesting realm because what we know about psychosis from TV and Netflix series might be an incorrect picture. If we follow the path of the signifier, the signifier that was the cause of the split of our subjectivity, or more precisely, which was the cause of subjectivity itself, an impact and the reaction to that impact and boom subjectivity. Neurotic structure, being based on the reaction to that impact via the repression, internalised the authoritarian signifier it became the basis of the functioning of the neurotic. Psychotic structure, being based on the reaction to that impact via foreclosure, which meant a rejection of the existence of authoritarian rules, has not internalised the authoritarian signifier and became almost a groundless ground, a ground ready to be used for the imaginary creativity of the possibilities ahead. One structure (neurosis), is ridden by guilt, which was the natural reaction to the encounter of the authoritarian signification. The other structure (psychosis), is not even aware of the existence of guilt at all. Neurosis is built on lack, psychosis is built on the non-existence of lack. Both scenarios provide a different perspective on "connectivity", what does connectivity in itself represent? Connectivity represents connections, in the case of society, connectivity would represent connections between individuals, families, cities and nations. However, neurotic and psychotic connectivity would differ highly because of the integral structural difference between the two structures. The prohibitional, authoritarian basis of neurosis would create connections based on the limitations created by the prohibition, which would mean connections based on borders and rules. Non-prohibitional and non-authoritarian basis of psychosis would create connections based on connections without limits because the structure itself was built on the non-integration of neither lack nor limits nor guilt. The same existential situation will be perceived differently by both sides, and the concept of freedom will be understood completely differently. Neurotic freedom will be freedom based on the structure of internalised borders, psychotic freedom will be freedom based on the non-symbolic, imaginary, more creative connections which are not based on symbolic limitations or borders. 

To be continued..