Getting back to the Imaginary Stage
Lacan insisted that I think this way or rather I do not think this way. To be more precise he insisted that I do not think at all because we think in words, in language, in linguistic roundness. So, I thought not to think and from there emerged the Lacanian thought that, “We are where we think not”. I did not want to encounter myself and thus began to think, what actually I am. (irony intended) And it is good to do away with time, with the time that does not pass…away. Anyway. So, Lacan persuaded me to think of the father, the symbolic father, which reminded me of my real father but ignoring that thought, I began to think of the symbolic father which makes me away from my mother (here symbolic mother), the mother who created me, the mother who defined me, who declared my existence, who is my real self, the “I” in me, the “not thought of” part of me. Fathers appeared before my eyes (the symbolic eyes). Arched eyebrows- my doubts, frowning nose- my anger, thin ears- to misbelieve, my blabbering mouth. Symbols spoke to me. I heard them with my eyes open (actually my symbolic eyes open and the real one closed). I saw those fathers in me and myself in others…same doubts, same anger, same misbelieve, same blabbering. I was perhaps in the MIRROR STAGE then (a unified being separate from the rest of the world)
Moulded with language, moulded in language, I did not like anyone, any of the symbolic fathers for separating me from my symbolic mother (the myself).
In the realm of symbols the reality is merging or rather demerging. Away from my real father, real mother, here I am with the symbols. My endeavour is to become the/a symbol…the no symbol…the no language…the no thought…the no pain…the no tears…the no something…the nothing, with no realization of separation or union. Here I am thinking of the “not thought of” part of myself in no language. Away from the reign of semiotics and semantics (none of which is convincing).
Here I am trying to get back to the Imaginary stage.
Thought less
Meaning less
Separation less
Emergence less
Sense less
A little less RICHA…
When Lacan announced at MIT that he thought with his feet rather rather than with brains, Noam Chomsky was convinced that he was mad. He described him as an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan. But then there are others who believe that there are more things in heaven and earth than the solidity of empiricism and straightforward prose. Some of the obfuscating clouds of theory seems to have claimed you as a victim. But victimhood has been articulated creatively. Keep writing Richa.
ReplyDeleteSir, thank you so much for your comment. I agree that theory has claimed me a victim but I enjoy this victimhood. And I will surely keep writing as I too want to victimize theory.
ReplyDeleteIts tragic, bcoz we have to use language(not in a vague chaotic form, but structured one) in the end to illustrate even the things in the unconscious. we have to describe it, we have to call it the 'not thought of' part of our mind. Is there a language in the world which can represent the unconscious as it is: a mixture of images.signs, words flying in the air. Infact the very act of thinking about the unconscious is related to our conscious mind. I often wonder how can someone think of the unconscious without involving the conscious mind? Can we place our self ('I') completely in the conscious or in the unconscious?
ReplyDeletePrabhat I think you are also a victim of theory. Happy Victimhood!! and to answer...I just tried to be consciously unconscious.
ReplyDeleteNow I know, where did that 'thoughts and words' come from. :D
ReplyDeleteComing to this piece, I think, symbols are the most beautiful part of the conscious/unconscious mind; considering 'not thought of' part and language complementary to each other. Romanticism needs language for its being.