0205 What does Zizek do?

He investigates the contiguity between a noumenon [and] its phenomena, as if it might be a feature and not a bug.

He gives examples of Bell’s theorem.  He talks about anxiety, when it comes to relying only on phenomena.  What about the noumenon, the thing itself?  Oh, I can take the model, framed within the disciplinary languages of quantum mechanics, and account for the data, the observable and measurable features of the phenomena of really tiny things.  But, I have to take a lot of measurements, because these things are really small.  Plus, I cannot predict the behavior of any single small particle, because they are all identical as far as the measurement apparatus is concerned.

In a fashion, scientists transcend the ontological thing itself.

Scientist prefer to replace the noumenon with what the noumenon must be, according to their models.   Then, the model (standing in the place of the noumenon) [can be objectified as] its phenomena.

0206 Zizek considers space.

Zizek ponders time.

But, these excursions only bring the author to admit that space and time may well be located on the content-level, along with what it is_3a and the potential of ‘the thing itself’_1a.

You know, that is location with the “Please disregard…” sign.

Zizek writes something like this.  Science?  How crazy is science?  Science pushes symbolizing the real with formulas that don’t make sense to the point where we substitute our own encounters with the thing itself with what we imagine that our symbol-laden formulas are telling us what the noumenon must be.

0207 I suspect that is why Zizek is paid the big bucks.

He says it so much better than me.

Lacan was also paid well.  This fact pissed off competing psychoanalysts.  Lacan did not regard their urinations when he coined the French term, “achoses“.  Achoses gets transliterated into no-things.

For, example, a superposition of states/waves_2a is an achose.

Decades later, Zizek nicely ties the ribbon by noting that the “a” of achose is the a of objet a, which I have already encountered as the actuality_2x that emerges from (and situates) jouissance_1x, as the potential of ‘truth and synthesis’_1x.

Or, is it the possibility of ‘a synthetic truth’_1x?

0208 How about the following?

What if data_1c are syntheses_1c of the truth_1c of measurements_2b?

Then I can use a Lacanian… um… a Peircean re-articulation of a Lacanian schema… to boldly rip the banner of “Please disregard…” from the imaginary noumenon level and reveal the fully exposed achose_2a, as what the model says that the thing itself must be.  Oh… what?… a particle composed of superimposed waves_2a?… that is not it_2a, is it_2c?

0209 Here is a picture of the three-level interscope.

0210 Well, it_2a may not be the noumenon_1a, but it_2a is objectified by um… its phenomena_1b.

On the content or imaginary or noumenon level, the normal context of what it is_3a brings the thing that the model says it is_2a (that is, an achose_2a) into relation with the possibility of ‘the thing itself’_1a.   Or, should I say, “the possibility that it_2a can be the thing itself_1a, which it_2a obviously is not, because it_2a is what scientists say it_2a must be”?

On the situation or real or phenomenon level, the normal context of a measurement apparatus_3a brings the actuality of the dyad_2b, {the collapse of states/waves [yields] a measurement}_2b, into relation with the possibility of ‘phenomena from what is of the Positivist’s judgment’_1b.

On the perspective or symbolic or model level, the empirio-schematic judgment more or less unfolds.  The disciplinary language of quantum mechanics_3c brings the actuality of the dyad_2c, {acquired data [fits into] mechanical or mathematical model}_2c, into relation with the possibility of ‘data’_1c, which is obviously a mask for jouissance_1cdesignated as the potential of ‘a synthetic truth’_1c.

0211 After all, doesn’t “data_2c” manifest synthetic truth_1c?

And, doesn’t “data_2c” (as matter) fit into a mathematical or mechanical model_2c (as form)?

And, just like Jesus sees Satan fall from the heavens, like a lightning bolt, does not the symbolic cast its own image down to the imaginary?

Lacan follows a sacred vision to its obscene essence.

Metaphysics is not allowed.The achose is the discharge of radical materialism_2c into the hollow_2a between what it is_3a and the potential that it is_1a.