Certainty and its relationship to the Other: Zizek uses George Soros as his example of this. Soros is either manipulating the money markets (El Shaddai?) and so in a direct relationship to many people’s well-being or he is relieving people’s distress (Elohim?) with money from his massive charity foundation. He ricochets between these two positions and he is generating certainty from both positions. The UK government is in a similar position with the amount of ‘protective’ legislation they have passed onto the statute books especially in the area of mental health.
A different perspective on certainty is those who are addicted to it. I am thinking of a subject who spent much of his time searching the internet for the image which complied with his rules. This imaginary world was so powerful that he although he is educated to degree standard forgot that the police can trace you. When the world where he enjoyed control of his enjoyment collapsed, he was very scared.
A personal example: When Dave Snowden suggested I became guest editor, it sounded like a good idea. On 6th January when I was supposed to start, I panicked. I could not relate to the Other of the cognitive-edge blog. I had exited from a relationship with Dave into free fall. I therefore invented a relationship to cognitive-edge’s invitation and became able to blog.
What I don’t know is whether my imaginary cognitive-edge Other is related to anyone out there. This situation would be improved if I could go on line and check 1) whether my technician, Dave, has actually posted the first blog and 2) whether there are any responses. In this respect, I am behaving rather like my previous example. Anyone who has been involved in any of the government’s ‘consultations’ will recognise this process. Consultations are in name only. They are there to prove that the government’s actions are correct. Thus certainty implies a rigid relationship to the Other – an Other which guarantees uniformity. Difference is excluded.
Uncertainty and its relationship to the Other: If you are in a relationship with an Other (YHWH) that does not guarantee truth, then meaning can fail, results cannot be predicted, and there are no oughts to relationships as they are based on trust or transference. Graciela Brodsky gives an account of uncertainty and psychoanalysis. The original includes a story . Some edited points:
Unpredictability in psychoanalysis can be considered, in fact, as a particular case of one of Murphy's laws, which says 'nothing will go as predicted.' In the context of Murphy's laws, this principle is the corollary of the number one law, which says, 'if anything can go wrong, it will.' Often, in psychoanalysis, if nothing is going as expected, then things are going well.The unpredictable can't be eliminated from analytical practice.
Knowledge in itself can only give room to surprise when knowledge fails; here is the relationship of surprise with truth.
Unpredictability, which is proposed as a principle in Lacanian practice, has a long history It goes back to Roman law. There's a clause which is specific to international law and private contracts: the rebus sic stantibus. It indicates that an exceptional change of circumstance may affect the validity of treaties. It's what is known as the unpredictability clause.
I suspect that the principle of uncertainty – the relationship to an Other who fails - is not acknowledged by many governments and people who do not want the risk of taking responsibility for their own position. Results are not predictable, knowledge fails, and position change.
Tomorrow: cbt and evidence-based practice unless uncertainty strikes again.
Comments (2)
Dave suggests asking questions so I am going to try some. I am not used to the style and despite having a bit of history in Philosophy, I consider myself largely ignorant of Lacan. I am not sure I understand the difference between the certain (Elohim & El Shaddai) and uncertain (YHWH) Others as opposed to the shift in relationship you describe in your personal example here.
Is there a difference between a relationship with an uncertain Other (YHWH) and a relationship with an unknown Other as you describe when you first took on the blog? In your former posting you describe the move to uncertainty as an act of self mutilation (often symbolic), and I wonder if the risky act of accepting the blog - taking on an uncertain relationship? - as the same type of act, is risk an act of self mutiltation? At the same time I understand you aren't breaking an old relationship to an existing Other but moving from a pre-existing relationship with Dave to a new relationship with an unknow other and not damaging the existing relationship. I'm not sure if my questions even make sense, but I'd be interested in anything you have to say.
Posted by Robert Edyvane | January 19, 2008 9:53 PM
Posted on January 19, 2008 21:53
Response to Robert Edyvane
I am reconnected to the blog but only psychically. In my practice rooms in Earls' Court, most of the time I can connect to the internet. Unfortunately, today is the exception.
Some answers
Although Jacques Lacan is now taught under some surprising titles in Universities, he is not a philosopher. He was a practising psychoanalyst and psychiatrist in France. He trained in Freudian analysis. Working from his enormous practice - both private and at the hospital - he developed Freud's work. He wrote very little. What is becoming available are transcripts of his seminars, where this development work is explored. These seminars are being developed by Lacanians working within the New Lacanian School.
A subject (you and I), is formed by undergoing a number of processes. This is not a theory of development as each individual makes their own, unique journey. Lacan in Seminar XI - The four Fundamental Concepts - develops the concepts of Alienation and Separation. Someone who is alienated cannot separate from the Other. This is Elohim, the too alive God. I refer you to the interview of Kenny Richey in The Guardian 19/1/08. Richey spent 21 years in a prison cell. He coped with the certainties. Now, the context for his life has changed, there are doubts he will cope. The process of separating from this alienation may elude him - let's hope not. Bobby Fischer's (same Guardian) death is described as 'Death of a madman driven sane by chess'. Fischer's only way to separate from alienation, is through submission to the rules of chess. The first process in separation is one of submission with the implementation of the law which separates. This, however, still gives certainty. The Other controls the rules.
Separation is three processes (Lacan Seminar XVI De l'un a l'autre). These are self-administered. First, the hole appears in the Other and an object is dropped. Secondly, a nothingness appears. Thirdly, the subject invents their own position in relation to the nothingness and can manage the uncertainty from this position. When I disappeared last week, I failed to manage the uncertainty. I could not find a position and the nothingness or worse the certainty smothered me. Over the weekend, I managed to cut myself adrift from this and regain my position. (Giving a seminar on how self-mutilation fails did not help.) Zizek calls this process of separation violent and mischievously uses Ghandi as an example. Ghandi challenged the certainties of the time. My late Mother remembers him visiting Birmingham University. He was distressed that his campaign to have cotton produced in India would cause unemployment in the Lancashire Mills. Ghandi chooses to separate off from the certainties of his time - Imperial Britain. Once separated, the unexpected may challenge you and you may have to change position. Your position is not the only truth but the truth you have chosen. Bobby Fischer could not cope with the unexpected so retained the certainty of his Chess Championship Title, by not playing chess.
I find I have not answered your questions. A risky or persecutory Other, may be a Certain Other, as in Bobby Fischer. I suppose working with self-administered separation, means you initiate your relationship to the Other. Descartes, famously, defined his God as One who does not deceive. This definition has limits. Once you go past the limits, you will find yourself in nothingness. Then, unless you wish to pass the rest of your life huddled over a small stove in a war-zone, you change your relationship to the Other. It is very Lacanian to leave you with questions as The Truth cannot be said.
Posted by Julia Evans | January 22, 2008 6:16 PM
Posted on January 22, 2008 18:16