Wobbly structuralistic bridge
Actuality and language
In a philosophical state of mind, all encounters take on enhanced signification. Situated high on top of the city, looking, seeing, and being-seen seem to take precedence. In considering subjective response, speculating on the perceptive reaction of the “other” repositions potential. Ocular instrumentality and the gaze appear almost synonymous.
“What determines me, at the most profound level, in the visible, is the gaze that is outside. Hence it comes about that the gaze is the instrument through which light is embodied and through which I am photo-graphed.” – Jacques Lacan
Realized in aesthetic expression, tools are influential intermediaries between subjects and objects, devices that command innovative ideas altering understanding. Experiencing the intersection of science and philosophy, instrumentality affects knowledge acquisition. Aware exposure compounds potential, framing the subjective point of view. Thought is preference in action, the mind a tool of consciousness.
“The pure present is an ungraspable advance of the past devouring the future. In truth all sensation is already memory.” – Henri Bergson
In the social order, authority and the associated exercise of power prevails. In our interrelations with others, we are frequently placed into positions of subordination. Hegel developed a theoretical relationship describing the dynamics of domination with his “master/slave” dialectic, where consciousness is mediated through another entity. Perhaps more properly translated as lordship and bondage, Hegel postulates the encounter between two distinct self-conscious entities is configured by recognition desire. In the quest for absolute knowledge, self-consciousness must recognize the possibility for the other’s self-consciousness. The dynamics of the relationship are unstable, but rooted in a struggle of selfishness.
“Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights.” – Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
The real, the imaginary, and the symbolic comprise a trifecta of Lacanian psychological domains that define developmental modes of mental accommodation, spaces in which subjectivity functions. The real is an ideal, primordial, pre-imaginary, pre-symbolic, chaotic quintessence refusing representation. The imaginary is the internalized representation of this ideal essence, a self-aware and organized, rather than fragmented, realm of images and illusion. The symbolic involves linguistic signifier formation and the construction of abstract models of understanding. Once the human internalizes a symbolic language, this Symbolic Order controls both desire and communication conventions. Reality becomes fantasy in the Symbolic Order, where elements lack material subsistence, but are constituted by virtue of perceptual signification.
“The real is what resists symbolization absolutely.” – Jacques Lacan
Division between subjects
The Other identifies with that which is exterior to an original concept under consideration. In the visual domain, this otherness is established by looking. As a determinant of self-identity, looking relates to distinctions between oneself and all other persons. An optical function, we develop subjectivity by interpretation of object energy patterns perceived. This gaze interrogates the dialectic of seeing while being seen, a fundamental reversibility within the scopic drive. Thus, the body is simultaneously both subject and object, here blending effortlessly with additional aesthetic object-offerings presented in the gallery.
“The eye and the gaze – this is for us the split in which the drive is manifested.” – Jacques Lacan
In a symbolic identification response to external stimulation, is the unconsciousness structured like a language as postulated by Jacques Lacan? Probably not all mental processes are linguistically formed, as thinking percolates below conscious awareness in a mixture of images, notions, and ideas that spark their way across our synaptic complex. Post-structuralism teaches us the instability of human understanding is a function of the intricacy of humans themselves, associated with the infeasibility of evading structural modalities in order to analyze them.
“We emphasize that such a form of communication is not absent in man, however evanescent a naturally given object may be for him, split as it is in its submission to symbols.” – Jacques Lacan
Individual human entities must interact socially in the high-mass concentration of the city-state. The total volume of a mixture to reach equilibrium divides the abundance of a constituent ingredient. Sometimes to escape or to hide are not possible options. Situational conveyance control, performance art is here forced upon the Other in a confined-space transformational stipulation. A force is any influence causing a subject/object to undergo a persuaded alteration, concerning its movement, direction, geometry, or mental configuration. Limiting access to art, freeing-up access to art, or coercing access to art, all circumstances influence the aesthetic experience.
“We are not supposed to all be the same, feel the same, think the same, and believe the same. The key to continued expansion of our Universe lies in diversity, not in conformity and coercion. Conventionality is the death of creation.” – Anthon St. Maarten
Lines of articulation
In the act of apprehending it, the world is already there, ready for subjective reflection. Unpredictable moments inform the study of essences in the capacity of existence. Although causal explanations are not always necessary, at the top of the Empire State Building, brushed stainless steel highlights the objective experience.
“Singularity indicates that there is no longer a subject-position available to function as the site of the conscious synthesis of sense-impressions.” – Bill Readings
In the hotel lobby, waiting for the scheduled activities of the day to unfold, radiation pattern recognition takes center stage. Thinking about Spinoza, the subject and object of art are merely different aspects of a single substance, incapable of transcending the events of the material world. As embodied, our identities are necessarily dependent on the aesthetic environment. As we gaze, so we are gazed upon.
“I would warn you that I do not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or ugly, well-ordered or confused.” – Baruch Spinoza
Here we find the shadowself functioning as a form of the Other, observed interacting in motion with the exterior environment. Some philosophers postulate that it is through the relationship with the Other that we formulate our self-identity. This coupled appearance occurrence might be construed as a productive recursive identity iteration, although still under conditional control parameters. The shadow self represents a presence by virtue of an absence of light, as the individual directly modulates the given reality.
“For the signifier is a unit in its very uniqueness, being by nature symbol only of an absence. “ – Jacques Lacan