0030 So, is this really about [wealth and power]?

For an author that self-identifies… er… is selflessly identified as a Hegelian philosopher, a Lacanian psychoanalyst and a Marxist materialist, the uninitiated has a simple question, “Why not just grasp the bronze serpent of pure atheism and be done with it?”

Well, I suppose that the bronze serpent is a little too nonscientific to intellectually accept.

Even though it keeps us alive.

After all, plagues can be unnerving.

So, let me tone down the dragonian imagery and replace the Freudian ‘death drive’_1c with the less draconian term, ‘our truth’_1c.   Of course, in the following figure, the “our” is already fading, because, well, the Relativist One₃ stands above all jurisdictions, including whatever dominion lays claim to me.

Here is the adjusted picture, where the Relativist One₃ stands as the alternative to Zizek’s Christ₃.

0031 Isn’t that more palatable?

However, I have not addressed the question, asking, ” Why does Zizek find Christian atheism attractive?”

Why Christ₃?

One answer is that Christianity is not direct.  It is the only religion that cannot be accessed directly.  To get to the New Testament, one must pass through the Old Testament.  The passage is perilous, because Judaism is like a tar baby.  Once you touch it, you are stuck with it.  And, if you dare to shake the tar baby off, your are left with an indelible stain.  Today, that stain is called “antisemitism”.

Of all “-isms”, antisemitism is unique because it occupies the passage to Jesus, the Messiah.  Jesus is Christ because the elites of the second Temple do not want any competitors.  So what does the Messiah do?  He turns their establishment into a doormat.

0032 The execution of Jesus is a routine political operation.

The Roman occupiers are intent on preventing the appearance of a king that would unite all Jews with the Second Temple.  In this regard, they are like socialists.  Socialists are in the business of exercising order.  Rome rules an empire.  Order is paramount.

The Sadducees and Pharisees are intent on maintaining their authority, in regards to their “readings” of the Pentateuch. They distill laws from the text.  The laws multiply, like all regulations do.  The elites earn nice incomes from determining laws and devising pathways to evade the laws that they determined.  They are the bourgeois who represent God… er, the Text… to the proletarians.  In this respect, the elites of the Second Temple are like capitalists.

0033 The operation?

The capitalist offers a crisis for the socialists to fixate on, and, in the process, remove a potential roadblock to the status quo of continuing acquisition.

Here, the Second Temple elites offer a “king”, actually, a potential competitor who might undermine their um… “business practices”, for the Romans to worry about, arrest and execute.

0034 In Hegel’s terminology, the capitalists offer a thesis, that produces a socialist antithesis, inadvertently advancing the agenda of the capitalist, while, at the same time, generating an objective being, a “truth”, if one accepts the term, that is accessible to all who pay attention.

0035 Above the crown of the dying Jesus, the Romans post a sign, proclaiming, “King of the Jews”.

Below the feet of the dying Jesus, attending elites mutter about how incorrect that proclamation is.  The declaration should say, “He claims that he is King of the Jews.”

0036 Both are political accusations.  They parallel one another.  Jesus is actual king₂ by way of Roman authority.  Jesus purports to establish his kingdom as a normal context₃ upon the potential of his rule being not of this world₁.

Then, wait three days, the divine consequences shake the capital. The political parallels appear to converge on a single point, a single “substance”.   Jesus is dead and now… um… lives to tell about it.  An ontological reality coincides with a transcendent reality. Jesus [is] king_2b and his kingdom_3b manifests the potential of the Messiah_1b.

I [am] who I am crowns His Son as king of a sovereignty that is both of and not of this world.

0037 To the Hegelian, the capitalist, who is concerned about accumulating offers a thesis that taunts the socialist, who is concerned about the exercise of order.

That thesis keys into [wealth and power].

The socialist responds to the capitalist’s thesis with an antithesis, inadvertently advancing the agenda of the capitalist, while at the same time generating a “suprasubjective being”, a “truth”, if one accepts the term, that is experienced as a revelation.

0038 By 70 AD, the congruence of the two systems that executed Jesus ends.  The Romans destroy Jerusalem and level the second Temple, in a military act whimsically called, “Operation Gaza”.

0039 Christianity may overcome the gap that separates humans from God.  But, that is not the issue at hand.  For the purposes of this examination, Christ₃ provides a way to step on the doormats of capitalism and socialism, or the accumulation of capital and the social exercise of order, on the way to… what?.. understanding ‘truth’₁?

0040 Both capital and social are doormats.  In Lacan’s terms, instances of desire, or mental organization, or fixation, or whatever the French term, objet a, indicates, are like doormats, that is actualities₂ that must be stepped upon in order to contextualize₃ the potential of truth₁.

Also, the contiguity, [wealth and power], which everyone can talk about even though they cannot picture or point to what it is that they are talking about, may be labeled petit objet a.  

0041 A petit objet a serves as a clue that an objet a is present, even though it is too close or too far, too enveloping or too miniscule, to recognize.  This makes sense, here, insofar as objet a is both matter and form.  Plus, matter and formbelong to the first abstraction in a natural philosophy of the thing itself.

If capital & accumulation (thesis) explains whatever demands the exercise of social interests & order (antithesis), then where is the synthesis?

0042 Let me make a comparison of Aristotle’s hylomorphe and this perspective-level economic thing_2c.

0043 Every term in the above figure is an explicit abstraction.

0044 What do I mean by that?

Spoken words can label everything and anything, wholes and parts, big and small, whatever.  In this sense, a spoken word precedes its referent.  The label precedes the thing that is labeled.

0045 In contrast, the manual-brachial gestures of hand talk picture and point to their referents.  Referents precede the gestural word.  This is why humans innately imagine that, when hearing a spoken word, that the referent can be pictured or pointed to.

This lesson even applies to some rather odd hand-talk names.

Consider the paleolithic artifact that combines two hand-talk works, [image LION] and [image MAN].  When my compatriot gestures [LION][MAN], I know that the referent is both lion and human.  The referent either has the matter of a lion and the form of a man or the matter of a man and the form of a lion.  Or, the referent is a mixture of these two arrangements.

This is an implicit abstraction.

0046 Aristotle and Peirce agree that speech-alone talk confounds our intuition because we expect that every word has a referent that is so whole as to be pictured or pointed to.  That is why hylomorphes shine.  They substitute for what would be [image MATTER][image FORM], if matter [and] form could be pictured using manual-brachial word-gestures. 

The same goes for what [point to CAPITAL & ACQUISITION][point to SOCIAL & EXERCISE OF ORDER] would be,if these spoken terms could be pictured or pointed to.  But, even though hylomorphes shine in this regard, the explicit abstraction inherent in spoken words confuses our intuition.

0047 A good rendition of a [LION][MAN] appears in the 1930s movie, The Wizard of Oz.  This is the movie where Dorothy’s silver shoes (in the book) are replaced by ruby slippers (in the movie), shifting what grounds Dorothy from the honesty of a precious metal to the deviousness of fiat currencies.  Red is the color of both bankruptcy and blood.

But, back to the movie, at the happy end of the yellow-brick road, in the Emerald City, the lion man, who would be courageous if he only was not a scaredy cat, receives a medal of honor and thereby assumes (through acquisition, thesis) a heroic place in the social order (antithesis).

If the following figure fits the above comparison, then what does that imply about the substance, [wealth and power]?

0048 Am I saying that every citizen has “skin in the game”?

If citizens hold the liberty to acquire property and build capital, then will those citizens order themselves, as a spontaneous social exercise, through the [substance] of [wealth and power]?

Hmmm.  Does “capitalist substantiated spontaneous socialism” sound like Zizek’s “emancipatory collective”?

0049 Here is a comparison.

According to Ferdinand de Saussure (1859-1913), the father of modern linguistics, language consists of two arbitrarily related systems of differences, parole (speech) and langue (whatever goes on in our heads in regards to speech).  Paroleas speech is like capital and acquisition, it provides the resources to utter and to decode. Langue as thought is like social behavior and the exercise of an order within the brain… er… mind.

Plus, parole [utter and decode] langue is a single act, just as matter [substance] form connotes a single thing or event.

0050 Her is another comparison, which shows how the “substance” may be degenerate.

Degenerate?

Isn’t that like “either/or” depending on how two real elements approach one another?

For quantum physics, “degenerate” labels two or more standing waves that have the same (or “degenerate”) orbitalenergies.

0051 Taking the carbon atom as an example, electrons orbit the nucleus as standing waves.  One electron has a magnetic moment that pairs with another electron’s magnetic moment.  A magnetically coupled pair of electrons occupy an orbital (or standing wave).

Once two electrons occupy one orbital, then that is it.  The orbital is occupied.  All other electrons will be repelled.

Carbon has six protons in its nucleus and six electrons in orbitals around the nucleus. The first two electrons go into a spherical orbital close to the nucleus, labeled 1s, yielding 1s² (two electrons in the first spherical orbital).  The next two electrons have to park themselves further out on the second level, yielding 2s².

Then, unlike the first level, the second level has additional orbitals corresponding to standing waves with one node (or empty location).  These are called “p-orbitals”.  After all, they are perpendicular to one another.  So, the remaining two electrons go – willy nilly – into the p-orbitals, yielding a final electron configuration of 1s²2s²2p₃² for the six electrons.  Why willy nilly?  The three “p” orbitals are “degenerate”.  They have the same energy.

Here is a picture.

0052 Ah, can I guess why Zizek wants to use quantum mechanics as a “specialized language” for his discourse?

First, scientific terms such as “degenerate” are used by common folk to refer to human behaviors.  

Second, there is an ambiguity concerning what a fundamental particle, such as an electron, actually is.  Is it a charged particle or is it a moving or standing wave?

Here are two suggestions. 

0053 Of course, whether one observes the electron as a particle or as a wave depends on the measuring apparatus.  So, if matter associates to presence and if form associates to what the scientific instrument measures, then what is the electron?  What is it?

Here is one option, where the electron is observed as a standing wave.

0054 Here is another option, where the electron is observed as a particle.

0055 Finally, the actuality₂ that is the electron is only understood in a category-based nested form.

Here is a picture.

0056 The electron’s substance is well… difficult to imagine.  Is [and] sufficient?  It makes me wonder about all substances.  A [substance] is not one of the two real elements.  [Substance] is the contiguity between two real elements.

Clearly, a choice has been made by material science, at least, in regards to an electron.

It (matter) is a negatively charged, mass-bearing fundament.

Its form is a standing wave, orbital, and so forth. 

The selection of the normal context₃ and potential₁ is a choice that curiously establishes the form that the actuality₂manifests.

Here, the normal context is a measuring apparatus₃ and the potential is observations and measurements of phenomena₁.

0057 In the chapter three, on superpositions and athings, Zizek delves into Bell’s theorem and observations of spooky interactions at a distance.  Things in the real are not what we imagine them to be.  Or, should I say, what they imagine themselves to be? In this examination, I will make an effort to use examples that are not so cutting edge, such as the electron subject to a measurement apparatus.

My effort does not stand in the way of Zizek’s approach.  If quantum mechanics is the mechanics of very small particles, and if these small particles constitute all material, then quantum mechanics should not be ignored in the philosophy of a real materialist… degenerate or not.

0058 In the introduction, Zizek lists three recurring themes that belong to his conceptual project (A, B and C).

The first (A) is an atheism at the core of Christianity.  The second (B) is the epistemological and the ontological implications of quantum mechanics.  The third (C) is a transcendental and ontological parallax.

0059 At this point, I have touched upon the first two, using a Peircean framework.

First (A), I postulate that the doormat that is contextualized by Christ₃ is the hylomorphic actuality_2c in the following figure.

The perspective-level normal context of Christ_3c brings the actuality of the dyad, {capital & accumulation [wealth and power] social & exercise of order}_2c, into relation with the potential of ‘truth’_1c.

0060 Second (B), the ontology of the hylomorphe₂ is a very twitchy topic.  The [substance]₂ changes character the moment that a new normal context₃ enters the scene.  The logics of thirdness are exclusion, complement and alignment.  For quantum mechanics, a situation-level wave-measuring apparatus_3b excludes the normal context of a particle-measuring apparatus_3b.  The [substance]_2b follows along by reducing the contradictions inherent in the hylomorphe, given the apparatus_3b.

Likewise, if Christ_3c (in contrast to the Relativist One_3c) is the only normal context to yield an honest potential_1cunderlying the perspective-level substance, [wealth and power]_2c, then Zizek has a lot of explaining to do.

After all, Christ_3c occupies the slot that is reserved for the Holy Spirit₃.  Fundamentally, the normal context of the Holy Spirit₃ brings the dyadic actuality of the Father [and] the Son₂ into relation with the potential of the oneness of God₁.  So, Zizek’s configuration is not fundamental.

But, if it is not fundamental, then what is it?

0061Third (C), Kant (more or less) claims that “reality” is “transcendentally constituted” by the structure of the categories (or should I say, normal contexts and potentials”?) through which we apprehend it.

Here, “reality” may be a situation-level hylomorphic actuality_2b, like an electron that is {it [substance] wave}_2b.  “Reality” may also label a perspective-level actuality_2c, such as {capital & accumulation [substance] social & exercise of order}_2c.  The fact that Zizek chooses Christ_3c instead of Marx_3c as the normal context is telling.  The truth_1c of Christ_3c differs from the truth_1c of Marx_3c.

0062 So, there is a choice, either Christ_3c or the Relativist One_3c (in its diverse constellations).

Perhaps, the relativist choice contributes to the self-inflicted incongruities that plague the post-modern West.  Yes, it seems that we are plagued with moral versions of optical illusions.  For example, a government intervenes in so-called “capitalist” systems in order to achieve “socialist” aims.  So, the award a very profitable contract for surveillance equipment is framed as a orderly solution to domestic security concerns.

Thesis binds to antithesis.

0063 Perhaps, I should be less petty.

The truth₁ of Christ₃ differs from the truth₁ of every pretender₃ to the title of “Messiah”, because Christ₃ is the one₃that self-anointed capitalists want to keep out of their markets₂ and the one₃ who threatens the boundaries of those who have appointed themselves to be the purveyors of social order₂.

0064 Surely, that claim harmonizes with Zizek, who, in chapter one, lauds the mission of letting religion deplete itself.

The question is, “Which religion does Zizek point to?  Each and every Christian faction?  Or each and every relativist faction pretending to the Messiah’s throne?”

0065 Oh, maybe that is not the question, after all.

Maybe the question is, “How does religion (or the domain of the One₃) deplete itself?”

An eerie and disembodied voice intones, “It depletes its own [substance]”.

It depletes its [wealth and power].

0075 Have I identified those who cannot handle the truth₁?

Or those who cannot handle the synthesis₁?

On one hand, some accumulate capital… [wealth]… without regard to their responsibilities… [power].

On the other hand, some exercise order… [power]… without regard to their freedom… [wealth]… to be productive.

0076 Then, there are those who dampen the irreducible oscillations, so that the contradiction-filled actuality₂ takes on a certain blandness.  

0077 Zizek starts with American-style Afropessimism.  Yes, it may be true_1c, but does it cover the current situation?  Does it synthesize₁?

Surely, with the capitalists of northern European descent and their politicians exercising social order, the slaves of African descent could easily fall into… what scholars today call… “Afropessimism”.

Here is a picture.

0078 Yeah, this version of Afropessimism is definitely American.  Plus, it is not Christian.

For matter, the slave of African-descent not only cannot accumulate capital, but his own phenotype (or form) tells others that he constitutes capital, in the normal context of one who is not Christ₃.  It is almost as if the contiguity is the inversion of [wealth and power].  Thesis and antithesis both work against the slave in this instance.

So, what happens after slaves are freed in the 1860s?

0079 Decades after the War of Southern Rebellion and the War of Northern Aggression, the rich industrialists of the victorious north open the floodgates to European immigration. These European masses settle into ethnic neighborhoods, with their own restaurants, pubs and churches.  Ethnic neighborhoods become sites of capital accumulation and fiefdoms exercising local order.  Yes, I am talking about neighborhoods in big northern cities.  Local businessmen, police and clergy grow powerful enough to thwart inroads by both big money and big government.  Eventually, many recalcitrant neighborhoods are destroyed by federal and state governments in the name of “urban renewal”₁.

0080 To understand how far dehumanization has gone in the USA, Afropessimists are now labeled, “blacks”, and ethnic Europeans displaced from their city neighborhoods are now labeled, “whites”.

The 1950s and 1960s mark two decades of the so-called “Cold War,” or, what I now label, “The Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods: The Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies”.

0081 That war ends in 1989.

I wonder what comes next.

How about “The Fourth Battle involving Enlightenment Gods: Empirio-Normative Domination of Subject Populations”?

Oh, that sounds like a nightmare.

It officially starts in 1989 and continues to this day.

0082 In one instance, big government (il)liberalism “handles” the truth₁ through synthesis₁.

Big(il)libism?

The bigger the government gets, the more illiberal the party becomes.

0083 Bigilibs work both sides of the hylomorphe.

0084 For capitalism₂, the government accumulates “trust funds” for ‘victims of old age’.  Later, other victims manifest, each requiring accumulations and dispensations tailored to their needs.

For socialism₂, big(il)libs exercise social order on victim’s behalf.

0085 What is left out of this picture?

The bigilib party and its allies acquire wealth and power at the expense of the people who are not designated victims.

Indeed, according to their broadcasts, the people who are not designated victims are responsible for those who are designated victims, and need to listen to and obey the One Who Protects The Victims_3c.

0086 It_1c may not be true_1c, but it is a great synthesis_1c.

So, I call the potential, “a synthetic truth_1c“.

Indeed, one could translate thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in the following figure into problem, diagnosis, and solution.

0087 I wonder, “Does a synthesis₁ somehow extend the life of its thesis₂ and antithesis₂?”

Doesn’t that sound like a death drive?

The solution_1c that undergirds both problem_2c and diagnosis_2c, not only fails to resolve the tension that plagues the Relativist One_3c, but also keeps the Relativist One_3c alive.

0088 It is a repetition disorder par excellence.

For example, if the solution_1c is forever postponed because the problem_2c of accumulating for the victims (of old age and so forth) and the diagnosis_2c requiring the exercise of social control in order to protect and assuage the victims (of old age and so forth), then the normal context_3c, the historically contingent not-Christ One_3c, who stands above all jurisdictions, stays alive.

0089 Indeed, as long as the hylomorphic actuality_2c retains its ontological realness, the transcendent normal context_3cand its sublime potential_1c continue to manifest the oneness of the entire category-based nested form.

0090 By the time that I get to Zizek’s question whether God believes in Himself, I have already crashed into the guardrails of Marxist materialism, Hegel’s phenomenology of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and Lacan rescuing Freud.  Yet, I feel that this examination stays oriented to Zizek’s parallaxical title, “Christian Atheism”.  After all, at this point, who knows whether my diagrams belong to Peirce’s philosophy or scholastic theological speculation?

A sublime synthesis_1c, coincides with the possibility of truth_1c, and sustains the actuality_2c of a thesis_2c and its antithesis_2c.  The [contiguity] between the two real… er… ontological elements_2c, sustains the continued constellation of a transcendent normal context₃, that proclaims, “This category-based nested form is alive.”

This category-based nested form illustrates what Freud calls, “the death drive”.

Through repetition, obsession, sublimation and fatalism, the normal context of the Holy Spirit₃ operates on the potential oneness of God₁, that is, the Islamic Allah₁.

Say what?

If God is great, then God is alive.  And, if God is alive, then God manifests in all three of Peirce’s categories.  The Oneness of God₁ potentiates the dyadic actuality of His Own Actualization₂ in the normal context of His Own Spiritual Being₃.  

0091 Here is a picture of One God, constellating the Three Persons as well as the Sublime thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

0092 Weirdly, an always postponed synthesis_1c, undergirds the actuality of {the thesis of the Father (corresponding to the Old Testament) [in contiguity with] the antithesis of the Son (corresponding to the New Testament)}_2c.  In other words, a sublime synthesis_1c stands under the ontological realness of a dyadic actuality_2c, containing the tension that is the first Person of God [in human relation with] the second Person of God_2c, in the normal context of a third, transcendent Person of God_3c, Divine Inspiration_3c.

To which the highly academically credentialed purveyor of oversimplification replies, “God is [love].”

How so?

The historic contiguity, [begets, supports and dies with], represents a human connectivity… er… contiguity… that some would label as [love].

Oh, it is that parallax business again!

To me, the category-based nested form pictured above is in sync with Lacan, and Zizek is on the verge of revelation.

And maybe, I am on the verge of consternation.

0093 The neurotic cannot sustain the tension.  The neurotic wants to reify the contiguity and say, “God is love and ‘love’ is whatever I want the label to signify!”  

The pervert aims to sell a product, labeled “The Love of God”, to the neurotic.

After all, isn’t that what the neurotic desires?

The neurotic wants thesis to precede antithesis then antithesis to resolve into a synthesis that the neurotic can… um… label.

But, what if the synthesis never arrives?  What if the synthesis is constantly postponed, because a sublime synthesis₁supports the ontological realness of thesis [in tension with] antithesis₂, and the dyad₂ is contextualized by a transcendent mediator₃, a person₃, a normal context₃ that is… what other word can I use?… alive.

0094 Note that there are two sets of three labels in the single living relational being depicted above.

0095 The first set belongs to thirdness and secondness, normal context_3c and actuality_2c, and corresponds to the Trinity, Three Persons in One God.  The three labels are Holy Spirit, Father and Son.  The relational nature intrinsic to the Trinity may be formulated in many ways.  The above figure is developed in the second interlude in How To Define the Word “Religion”, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

From the Trinity, Zizek chooses his own Person₃ (Christ_3c) to be the One₃ for his theoretical configuration.

0096 The second set belongs to secondness and firstness, actuality₂ and possibility₁, and corresponds to Hegel’s three standings: thesis as matter₂, antithesis as form₂, and synthesis as the potential of matter [substance] form₁.  In these standings, the ontological₂ emerges from and situates the sublime₁… er…. transcendent.

Here is where the atheist pursues apparent advantage, by asking, “What kind of evil Father would do something so stupid as to sacrifice his own Son in order to redeem the same babbling morons that He tried to destroy in Noah’s flood?”

In a way, this question is purely materialist, because it blurs the gap between actuality₂ and possibility₁.  Why would God allow Himself to die?  Would dying destroy His Oneness?  Or would it forever confound the question of God’s oneness with the reality of God’s Self-Actualization?

Zizek poses a similar question.  Does God_3c believe in Himself_2c, as a thesis₂?  Perhaps, the Holy Spirit_3c does.  But the Father’s Son_2c has a moment of concern.  In asking this question, the author relies on a specialized language, a Hegelian language, where he can talk about God_2c, as a thesis in [contiguity] with its antithesis, emerging from (and situating) a synthesis, the oneness of God_1c.

0097 I suppose that a similar purely relational structure applies to my own ontology and transcendence.

For the example, in Freud’s terms, my “superego” might go with thesis (and matter) and my “ego” might go with antithesis (and form).  So, I have a busybody upstairs always telling me the right thing to do. Who doesn’t?  But, what is worse is the synthesis₁, which dwells in the realm of possibility because (heaven forbid!) I₃ would never act upon the ideas₁ undergirding the tension between me telling me the right thing to do [and] me making excuses for why I cannot do the right thing₂.  I dare not name those desires₁ without the assistance of psychoanalysis within the seclusion of the analytic dyad.

Consequently, I tell my psychotherapist that I have a problem with making excuses.

And, I hope that the doctor does not reify my desire₁ and write a diagnosis₂ in a database₃ that can be hacked and sold to whoever wants to pay for that type of information.

0098 Zizek ends chapter one with a section on the transition from agnosticism to pure difference.  Oddly, the transition seems to be both transcendent and ontological.  Two triads stand out. One crosses from normal context₃ to actuality₂.  That goes with “Christian”.  One crosses from actuality₂ to potential₁.  That goes with “atheism”.

But, Zizek’s configuration is not theological, it is true₁ materialism₁, where materialism₁ blurs synthesis₁ with the actuality of thesis [in tension with] antithesis₂.

0099 Here is a picture.

0100 The theological and ontological “causations”… er… the primary and secondary causation inherent in the category-based nested form… fades into the background.  Here is another instance of parallax.  As one looks at the foregrounded nested form, transcendence and ontology shift around in the background.

Yes, this is very much in tune with Zizek’s gestalt shifts.

0101 To me, it seems that Zizek always writes with something else in mind.  That style goes with one type of parallax, where one changes location while viewing the same object and the background changes as well.  So, the viewer looks at the same thing (in the foreground), yet the appearance of the thing changes (with the background).

So, what am I looking at in the foreground?

Oh, it must be the petit objet a, that is [wealth and power].

0102 How can this be, when [wealth and power] is a [substance], a contiguity… a “causality”, if you accept the term… between what is capital and what is social?

0103 Of course, everyone speaks of wealth and power, but I ask, “Where is the referent?  What is there to picture or point to?”

Oh, it must be that… um… contiguity?

0104 Maybe I should be asking, “If the inquirer focuses on [wealth and power], and [wealth and power] looks different depending on whether the background constellates as either Christ₃ or a Relativist One₃, then why the hell do I not even register the real elements of capital & accumulation, as well as of social & exercise of order?”

0105 Oh, I suspect that Lacan has a word for that.

Plus, I suspect that the word, in French, is “jouissance”.

Here is a picture.

0106 I ask one of my students, “What do you want?”

The little psychopath replies, “All I want is wealth and power.”

Then, the old British gentleman in the back of the lecture hall mutters, “That one will go far.”

In a certain way, Lacan cuts to the chase.  There are only two smoldering parts to the above figure.  They appear red in the following depiction.

0107 I don’t want to sound cynical, but ontological matter [and] form_2c is existentially contingent.  Christ_3c can be knocked from his throne by any interloper bold enough to say, “I am the one who stands above all worldly jurisdictions.”  Just ask King Henry VIII of England, before the moment when he is cast into hell for all eternity.  Henry₃ does a fine job in displacing Christ₃ and replacing the Lord₃ with a Protestant One₃ ruling over an overcast island surrounded by a turbulent sea.

Is that when the madness that is Great Britain begins?

Uh oh, the old guy with the cane in the back of the room is about to speak.

He reeks of wealth and power.

The little psychopath is all ears.

0108 Can anyone imagine a British version of Slavoj Zizek?

Or, maybe I should ask, “Can anyone imagine a re-telling of British history from Zizek’s point of view?”

That would be a tale of a system_3c, run by the One Who Relativizes All Jurisdictions_3c.

It would be a yarn about [wealth and power]_2c and jouissance_1c, Lacan’s designation for the potential of ‘synthetic truth’_1c.

How could it not be a story of sovereign self-justification?

How could it not be staged in the city of London?

0109 Chapter two is titled, “Why Lacan is not a Buddhist”.

Zizek claims that the preceding discussion (D) reflects the discipline of Lacanian psychoanalysis and (E) does not coincide with Buddhism, despite apparent similarities.

0110 Similarities?

Allow me to draw some more associations between Lacan’s terminology and the perspective-level category based nested form (that this examiner uses to structure this look at Zizek’s book).

0111 A Big Other_3c brings an {objet a (corresponding to matter) [contiguity] objet a (corresponding to form)}_2c into relation with jouissance_1c, designated as the potential for ‘truth and synthesis’_1c (or should I say, “the potential of a synthetic truth_1c“?).

0112 The normal context_3c seems to go with the Big Other_3c and the relativist one_3c.  Both exclude Christ_3c and offer [a petit objet a] that confirms the realness of the thing itself_2c (that is, an objet a).

0113 The substance of the actuality_2c, the petit objet a, is like a clue that indicates that both the matter and the form of objet a_2c are present.  Perhaps, I may associate objet a_2c to a noumenon and the petit objet a to its phenomena, if the association could sustain scrutiny.  It cannot, of course.

Well, to start, objet a is like a thing, composed of matter and form, that is an object of interest because the [substance]_2coffers clues that say, “This_2c is the object that you are looking for.”

0114 Objet a_2c cannot make sense, because it_2c refuses to be grasped by natural philosophy, which regards it_2c as something similar to Aristotle’s hylomorphe.  It_2c is.  And, it_2c is not.  After all, why label both matter and form with the same term, objet a?   Is Lacan working with explicit abstraction?  Or is he conjuring an act of implicit abstraction? The objet a_2c is a hook on a string.  The [petit objet a]_2c is a squirming worm.

0115 The Big Other_3c holds the fishing rod.  Jouissance_1c is a mighty hunger.

Is there a word for this sport?

0116 Louis Althusser calls it “interpellation”.

Jesus calls it “fishing for men”.

0117 Framed in this way, the red colors are like fishing flies, skimming the surface, yet attached to the line and pole of an expert fisherman.

No wonder Buddhists see similarities with their doctrines.

The system_3c is an illusion_2c fishing for human desire_1c.

So, the question is, “What does the Buddhist fail to see?”

The Buddhist regards every aspect of the above category-based nested form as an illusion, even the jouissance, the desire.

And, the Buddhist is correct.

So, let me pause, and brew a pot of tea.

0118 Is our karmic burden to grasp to acquire and find ways to exercise order?  The Buddhist monk begs for alms and food.  The Buddhist tradition exercises order, softly, in pragmatic approaches.  Buddhists coach those who suffer from excess jouissance_1c.  They offer subtle resistance to the relativist one_3c who personifies the system_3c.  Let go your illusions.  Stop suffering.

Then, according to Zizek, the Buddhist tradition goes on to codify the appearances (the diverse petit objet a) that are not spiritual beings, but rather contiguities within things_2c, that seductively whisper, “This is the objet a that you are looking for.”

The apparently spiritual entities (petit objet a) are influential and attractive. They constellate modes of acquisition and exercises of order (objet a).  Who would not be drawn into their intrigues?  So, strict boundaries are set.  Buddhists are not fools.

Buddhist institutions appear hopelessly formalized, hierarchical, and stagnant, in the same way that a river stays within its boundaries, knows where it is going and where it has been, and never seems to get anywhere.  But, look at the eddies that shimmer on the surface.  Buddhism flows without moving.

0119 The crux of Zizek’s configuration, [wealth and power], is an illusion.

But, Zizek says, “Not so fast.”

0120 Consider the clay pot in which I brew my tea.

Yes, this clay pot was thrown on a potter’s wheel.

Does this serve as a metaphor for Zizek’s configuration?

The normal context of the rotating system of a potter’s wheel_3a brings the actuality of {the acquisition of clay [wealth and power] shaping of pot as an imposition of order}_2a into relation with the potential of ‘truth and synthesis’_1a, that is, jouissance_3a.

0121 Why the subscript “a” instead of “c”?

The subscript “a” denotes firstness, with respect to level.  The above category-based nested form belongs to the content level.  In contrast, the subscript “c” denotes thirdness, with respect to level.  Zizek’s configuration belongs to the perspective level.

0122 So, I ask, “Does the petit objet a of [wealth and power] accrue to the content level, in this instance?”

Well, wealth can go with knowing how to acquire the clay and shape a pot on a potter’s wheel.  So can power.  But, this [wealth and power] is a mundane, imaginary attractor, compared to the celestial, symbolic lure of [wealth and power] on the perspective level.

0123 Yet, a Buddhist may respond, “This illusion of wealth and power actually offers an imaginary lure.  Consider the one who throws a pot with the intention… the fixation… that the pot is not for making tea, but to be sold at a certain price.  Then, does your petit objet a of [wealth and power] accrue to the level_b that situates the throwing of the clay_2a?”

0124 That is a very good response, here is the situation level, where a transaction occurs.

0125 The normal context of a transacting system_3b, such as a bazaar_3b, brings the dyadic actuality of {the price of a thrown clay pot [wealth and power] the demand for the manufactured pot}_2b into relation with the potential of ‘truth and synthesis’_1b, that is, situation-level jouissance_1b.

The price of the pot_2b goes with acquisition.  The price_2b is like a thesis.  Whether there is any demand at a certain price associates to an exercise of order_2b.  Indeed, in English, the term, “to place an order” signifies a demand and constitutes a transaction.  The order_2b depends on whether the quality_2b of the product is worth the price_2b.

To me, that means that the situation-level petit objet a_2b, [wealth and power]_2b, has become [transaction]_2b.

0126 Is that an illusion?

If it is, then this illusion stands as one of the foundational laws of economics.

0127 So it does, says the Buddhist economist.

The normal context of a market_3b brings the actuality of the dyad_2b, {price [transaction] quality}_2b, into relation with the potential of ‘voluntary exchange’_1b.

However, price_2b and quality_2b, the objet a, are illusive qualities that delusional Western economists turn into variables for their nonsensical equations.

Plus, the market_3b and the jouissance of voluntary exchange_1b are self-reinforcing constructs that lead to suffering.

0128 Did I pay too much for this pot in which I am brewing my tea?

Yes, I am stewing about that.

Perhaps, I need to let it go.

0129 Back to that law of economics that falls into the lap of a Buddhist economist, while playing with Zizek’s configuration.

Does Buddhism or does Zizek’s configuration account for this law?

Don’t ask me.

I am busy preparing a scenario to distract the reader from the question.

0130 In our current Lebenswelt… I have to throw in the German term for “living world” to show that this is serious… if I fixate, not so much on making high-quality clay pots, but in manufacturing so many clay pots as to attain wealth and power, then I hire a machine or a robot to accomplish the task without illusions… er… with singular intent.

On the content level, the contiguity between acquisition_2a and the exercise of order_2a is mechanically specified, using scientific models for clay and angular momentum.

On the situation level, the real clay pots that my corporation manufactures with no imaginary components_2a command a certain price_2b, due to demand in a market_3b that operates on voluntary exchange_1b.  Quality_2b can be defined as the price_2b at which a transaction takes place.  And so, I may begin my calculations, comparing quality_2b to the actual production costs of the specified product_2a.  The larger the difference between quality_2b and production costs_2a, the closer I get to wealth and power for each transaction.

0131 Hmmm. Does this sound Buddhist in any way?

Or am I missing something?

0132 I guess that I am missing the trade-off within the transaction_2b.

Also, I am missing the oneness of jouissance and the potential of voluntary exchange_1b.

0133 That brings me to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  The conclusion is obvious after reading Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019) by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.  Professor Michael Tomasello worked for many years at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.  Parts of the commentary appear in Razie Mah’s blogs for January through March, 2024.

0134 Jouissance_1b is about desire, under conditions where trade-offs are real.  Desire is hidden within the possibility of ‘voluntary exchange’_1b. My desire is not only for quality.  I ask, “Will it satisfy my demands?”  I want a good clay pot for making tea.  I also am interested in a “reasonable” price.  So, desire pertains to the objet a, which is composed of the matter of price and the form of quality.  [Transaction] is the contiguity between price_2b and quality_2b.

[Transaction] is like a substance that makes price_2b and quality_2b real.

[Transaction] is a situation-level petit objet a.

0135 Where does the jouissance of voluntary exchange_1b come from?

Uh oh, am I going to talk about human evolution?

Is this type of jouissance a human adaptation?

0136 Michael Tomasello offers an insight.  Once our distant ancestors are bipedal, in the ecology of mixed forest and savannah, individuals find that they cannot walk, bring the kids, and forage for the needed calories.  So, rather than individually foraging, they adopt collaborative foraging.  They start working in teams, in order to take advantage of opportunities that are not available to individuals.

For example, after a big rain in Africa, edible mushrooms sprout on the edges of certain dung heaps.  These are not available to an individual Homo erectus.  Why?  Being out in the open is dangerous and, after a dozen or so mushrooms, the interloper has eaten enough.  Abundance is available to a team carrying crudely manufactured baskets.  A team, numbering 15, employs a certain degree of labor specialization, such as lookout, gatherer and organizer.  That helps.  In short order, the team gathers enough to feed… not only the team… but the entire band.  The band numbers 50.

0137 In this example, pertinent to over 600,000 years ago, obligatory collaborative foraging_3b is the normal context for the team.  Voluntary participation reflects jouissance_1b, as the potential of ‘situational truth and synthesis’.  The truth is that mushrooms sprout at certain locations on the savannah after a big rain.  The synthesis is that every member of the team has acquired knowledge about these mushrooms, which are edible and which should be avoided, plus habits that pertain to keeping a lookout for predators and the ability to throw a rock accurately, plus a certain know-how that keeps everyone on task and tracks how full the baskets get.

0138 The actuality involves a [trade-off].  Acquiring mushrooms requires effort and risk.  The quantity and quality of the mushrooms is the reward.

0139 Yes, this looks very much like a transaction.  It also plays out as an implicit abstraction.  This is how foraging happens in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.  The above figure portrays a species-specific adaptation.

In our current Lebenswelt, the corresponding “economic law” is codified as an explicit abstraction and formulated into some sort of equation.  In this regard, the Buddhist has a point.  The codified version is like an illusion.  The illusion is a trap filled with apparently spiritual beings that say, “This is the objet a that you are looking for.”  Are you looking for price?  Or, are you more focused on quality?

0140 That is not all.  The dramatic events of living in the wild are missing.  In the Lebenswelt that we evolved in,situation-level team activity is contextualized by the social-circle of the team_3c.  Plus, the team is one_3c, within a panoply of social circles.  Social circles characterize hominin society.  In this regard, see Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

Can I go so far as to say the following?

The mushrooms growing around steaming wet turds_2a, the gathering of the mushrooms by a team on the open savannah_2b and the sharing of those mushrooms with friends and family_2c work in tandem.  One flows into the other in a virtual category-based nested form.  The flow illuminates an evolutionarily deep expression of Zizek’s configuration, as shown in the following figure.

0141 Here is a picture of the perspective-level that virtually contextualizes the situation-level of obligatory collaborative foraging_3b.

0142 Notice, that the contiguity is not [wealth and power].  It is [indirect reciprocity], the expectation that, in giving now, one will later receive a return.  The [transaction] of our current Lebenswelt supports [direct reciprocity]_2c, the expectation that I give now and immediately get something in return. 

[Direct reciprocity]_2c? 

Doesn’t that sound like [wealth and power]_2c?

Nothing is given without an expectation of return?

Nevertheless, in our current Lebenswelt, [indirect reciprocity]_2c offers an alternate label for [wealth and power]_2c. And, Christ_3c raises the ante with [altruism]_2c, which is giving with no expectation of return.

Surely, these are illusions.

But, they are also adaptations.

0143 Does this explain why Lacan is not a Buddhist?