image credit: Jacob Kessler, Cole Wright
by Noah Toth
image credit: Jacob Kessler
by Glynn St Juste
background image: Brandon Marashi; poem: Christian Halstead
It is in the early stages of infancy, Lacan claims, when the child first observes the apparent ‘wholeness’ of the body in the mirror that he mistakenly articulates himself as, or rather perceives himself to be, one with himself. In this moment, the child, fragmented at his core, a being of pure lack, operates within the linguistic discourses and interpretations of the other(s), consequentially becoming alienated from the real. He exists in pure strife. In a Lacanian sense, the real is simply that which loses its reality when symbolized through language or other means. Insofar as one cannot understand the real, one seeks to claim it (name it) and simultaneously desires to destroy it by forcing it into an order of the symbolic. Lacan’s subject struggles with his desire to both contain and comprehend that which dissipates and fragments around him along with his urge to murder the source of his anxiety. If we take this ‘murder’ of the symbolic order to be an act of negation, we notice that Lacan seems to be asservating that negativity or desire as such is produced from and operates out of, the subject’s lack. Here we see a
way of perceiving desire, or lack, as negative (and most importantly vice versa, that is negativity performed as desire), negative of course, to symbolic orders. I cannot help but be skeptical of this framework. Lacan seems too quick to reject the notion that the subject might desire the symbolic order itself. His rejection that desire, and essentially negativity, might exist independent of such symbolic encapsulations and regressive interpretations appears problematic. It resists movement; it associates negativity with possession instead of decomposition. In Lacan’s narration, negativity remains to be tied to desire and symbolic orders, incapable of being performed and actualized. If, however, we introduce desire, not as the desire for that which we lack (the real), but rather for that which we construct (i.e., the symbolic order itself that then itself generates the lack with which Lacan is preoccupied) then we are faced with a new way of articulating negativity as independent of desire. In this way we revitalize and recouple negativity with a certain degree of agency, allowing negativity to be a potentiality, perhaps of deconstruction, as opposed to an entrapment.
background images: Cole Wright
background image: Jacob Kessler
THINK(-)BEING is sponsored by Pace’s Philosophy Club.
The Philosophy Club studies, discusses, and explores a range of philosophies in order to understand, analyze, and criticize the world today. We meet every Thursday during common hour (3:25 – 4:25) in room E300. Join us for open discussions on topics such as pyschoanalysis, metaphysics, posthumanism, feminism, Marxism, and so on. As founded by the Philosophy Club, THINK(-)BEING is a fully studentbased publication on campus which aims to promote critical thinking and discourse on crucial issues in the contemporary era. All content is created by University students. Anyone interested is encouraged to submit an e n t r y for publication. We welcome photography, art, opinion pieces, philisophical writing, journalism, poetry, and all else that is both expressive and critical. We also welcome submissions of complete and utter nonesense. For more info (if the transference of information is even possible) contact... Julia Zorluoglu: js06163p@pace.edu; Christian Halstead: ch93322n@pace.edu. Follow us on Instagram! @PacePhilosophyClub [The opinions published in T(-)B do not express those of the Philosophy Club.] [T(-)B is paid for by the Student Activities Fee.]