{"id":10076,"date":"2012-12-08T12:14:43","date_gmt":"2012-12-08T17:14:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=10076"},"modified":"2012-12-08T12:14:43","modified_gmt":"2012-12-08T17:14:43","slug":"master-signifier-objet-a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2012\/12\/08\/master-signifier-objet-a\/","title":{"rendered":"master signifier objet a"},"content":{"rendered":"

… the formal homology (as well as substantial difference) between this reflexive logic of the Master-Signifier<\/strong> \u2014 the signifier of the lack of the signifier, the signifier which functions as a stand-in (filler) of a lack \u2014 and the logic of the objet petit a<\/span> which is also repeatedly defined by Lacan as the filler of a lack: an object whose status is purely virtual, with no positive consistency of its own, only a positivization of a lack in the symbolic order<\/span>. Something escapes the symbolic order, and this X is positivized as the objet a<\/span>, the je ne sais quoi<\/em> which makes me desire a certain thing or person.<\/p>\n

However, this formal parallel between the Master-Signifier<\/strong> and the objet petit a<\/span> should not deceive us: although, in both cases, we seem to be dealing with an entity which fills in the lack, what differentiates the objet a<\/span> from the Master-Signifier<\/strong> is that, in the case of the former, the lack is redoubled, that is, the objet a<\/span> is the result of the overlapping of the two lacks, the lack in the Other (the symbolic order) and the lack in the object \u2014 in the visual field, say, the objet a<\/span> is what we cannot see, our blind spot in relation to the picture.<\/p>\n

Each of the two lacks can operate independently of the other: we can have the lack of the signifier, as when we have a rich experience for which “words are missing” or we can have the lack in the visible for which, precisely, there is a signifier, namely the Master-Signifier<\/strong>, the mysterious signifier which seems to recapture the invisible dimension of the object.<\/p>\n

Therein resides the illusion of the Master-Signifier<\/strong>: it coalesces with the objet a<\/span>, so that it appears that the subject’s Other\/Master possesses what the subject lacks. This is what Lacan calls alienation<\/span>: the confrontation of the subject with a figure of the Other possessing what the subject lacks.\u00a0 In separation<\/span>, which follows alienation, the objet a<\/span> is separated also from the Other, from the Master-Signifier<\/strong>; that is, the subject discovers that the Other also does not have what he is lacking<\/strong>. The axiom Lacan follows is “no I without<\/span> a”<\/span>: wherever an I (unary feature, signifying mark that represents the subject) emerges, it is followed by an a<\/span>, the stand-in for what was lost in the signification of the real.<\/p>\n

Is, then, the objet a<\/span> the signified of the S1 of the Master-Signifier? It may appear so, since the Master-Signifier signifies precisely that imponderable X which eludes the series of positive properties signified by the chain of “ordinary” signifiers (S2).<\/p>\n

But, upon a closer look, we see that the relationship is exactly the inverse: with regard to the division between signifier and signified, the objet a<\/span> is on the side of the signifier<\/strong>, it fills in the lack in\/of the signifier, while the Master-\u00adSignifier is the “quilting point” between the signifier and the signified, the point at which the signifier falls into the signified<\/strong>. 598-599<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

… the formal homology (as well as substantial difference) between this reflexive logic of the Master-Signifier \u2014 the signifier of the lack of the signifier, the signifier which functions as a stand-in (filler) of a lack \u2014 and the logic of the objet petit a which is also repeatedly defined by Lacan as the filler … Continue reading “master signifier objet a”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[72,41,20],"tags":[116],"class_list":["post-10076","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-objet-a","category-the-real","category-zizek","tag-ltn"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10076","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10076"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10076\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10077,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10076\/revisions\/10077"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}