The Fundamental Object of Psychoanalysis with Prof. Todd McGowan

[00:00:00]In this episode >> Yeah, and this is I think why objet a cannot be just derived from transitional object or the partial or the bad object any of these things from Klein or Winnicott Winnicott or Klein because of this exactly what Slavoj Zizek was talking about, the way that it it emerges only when it's no longer there as part of the positive field and when it disappears as objet a, then it emerges again as a object in the positive field.

[00:00:32]>> Hello and welcome.

[00:00:34]Or perhaps welcome back.

[00:00:37]I'm Ashvir, the host of this YouTube channel.

[00:00:40]And again this time I had the privilege to talk to Professor Todd McGowan.

[00:00:45]Well, if you don't happen to know him, then I suggest you please watch my previous conversation with Professor Todd.

[00:00:53]And also check out his works and his YouTube channel.

[00:01:00]So, let me ask you something.

[00:01:03]Something personal.

[00:01:06]Have you ever wondered why you desire what you desire?

[00:01:10]Or when you are told not to do something you precisely want to do it. No?

[00:01:17]Okay.

[00:01:18]Another question then.

[00:01:19]Have you ever thought about why you aren't satisfied with what you have and you keep desiring more?

[00:01:27]>> What's so funny, Carl Weathers? You get no satisfaction from those $15 hookers?

[00:01:32]>> I'm never satisfied.

[00:01:35]It's a curse.

[00:01:37]>> I'm sure you said yes to at least one of the questions.

[00:01:40]And if you did then this is the conversation for you.

[00:01:45]In this episode I had questions concerning the origin and development of the objet a.

[00:01:52]The object cause of desire, arguably the most famous idea of Jacques Lacan.

[00:01:59]Pardon my French.

[00:02:00]I asked Professor Todd about the relation of object to the various forms of otherness, namely three, the symbolic, the real, and the imaginary.

[00:02:12]And also, how it relates to the four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis, the unconscious, repetition, transference, and the drive.

[00:02:25]We concluded the conversation talking about Coca-Cola and love.

[00:02:32]If you guys have any questions from the conversations that you want to ask Professor Mick Owen, then please feel free to drop them in the comment section. And if you cannot, um I forgot whatever reasons, then consider writing to me at [email protected].

[00:02:51]I hope time and again people find what I put out useful and of value.

[00:02:57]So, here we go.

[00:02:59]The conversation with my favorite professor, Professor Todd McGowan, starts now.

[00:03:05]Enjoy.

[00:03:06]Let's Let's Let's start by scratching the surface, Professor.

[00:03:15]When I was researching about object, I got to know that Lacan is not making this out of thin air.

[00:03:25]Lacan is actually inspired or borrowing it from Freud when Freud talks about the lost object, or at least when Klein or Klein, if I'm getting the name right, talks about the partial object or Donald Winnicott talks about the tran- transitional object. So, Lacan is not the only one who has talked about object or the object cause of desire. There were people talking about it. So, can we start with the early influences of Lacan on the idea of object a and how it develops? And I don't want to go into the development phase as of now, which is about the drive, the jouissance from loss to the lack.

[00:04:10]Just about the initial years of development. And why was he so keen on not translating object a into English?

[00:04:23]So, we could start with that question, Professor. Yes.

[00:04:25]>> Right. Yeah, I think sure. I I It's definitely true that Melanie Klein and her notion of the partial object and you mentioned Donald Winnicott and his notion of the transitional object. Like those were those were important for Lacan, but the the I think in a way it is and and of course Freud's notion of the lost object, too. But but I think in a way So, in in Seminar 21, which is the the they non duped air, the the those who aren't duped air.

[00:05:01]Lacan says the object a is what I invented.

[00:05:04]Perhaps. So, and I do I think he's right. Like I think that that is something that even though those are influences on him, I think it's he's trying to get at and it and it is interesting. It doesn't it emerges only in the 1960s. So, it's it's or around 1960. It's it's not it's it's not in the early in his early thinking, it's not really present. And I I think the real the key difference between Lacan and and Klein and Winnicott is that for them that object is something that the the child or the subject is is is desiring, right? And objet a is more I was kind of trying to think what is it that causes our desire. So, it's it's he he's using it to differentiate between the object of desire, which could be anything, whatever, right? Anything can be the object of desire. And then objet a is what causes us to desire that object. And for him those are two different things. And so, that I think it doesn't have the status of an actual object. Like obj- objet a is a kind of a I think it's not wrong to say that it's a it's a nothing. It's So, it's not it doesn't For Klein and for Winnicott, those are actual objects. Like for Winnicott, oftentimes transitional object is a child's blanket or something like that, right? So, that's and that's different than what Lacan is getting at with the with the with objet a because it's not it it often is or it's it's it's not anything actual that you could grab hold of, right? Like when you get it it's not then you find that's not it.

[00:07:03]So, I think that's a that's an important difference. And I think that's what he's that's what's driving him to develop his own concept rather than just taking one from these other thinkers.

[00:07:16]Why he doesn't want to translate it, it's sort of an interesting question because he never says that about any other concept, right? He never even though there are people who get really antsy about translating jouissance and things like that, but but Lacan himself never said anything about that. So, but he does say that, as you you're right to point out about objet a or objet petit a, those are the same thing.

[00:07:38]So, why is that? And I think it's tied to what I was just saying earlier because it mean it's it's it stems from the fact that it's an object that it doesn't it doesn't fit within the world of objects, right? And so leaving it untranslated is his way of retaining this not fitting in status of the object. So it's what doesn't fit in the perceptual field and that's why it has this special He wants to give it this special untranslated status. I think I think that's what He never said.

[00:08:18]But I think that's the logic behind why he doesn't want it translated.

[00:08:24]>> Professor, if you could be a bit louder, I mean, your voice. Is it possible?

[00:08:29]>> Yeah, sure.

[00:08:30]Is that okay? Is that Is that up higher?

[00:08:34]>> Yeah. Yeah, much better. Yes. So Professor, the last time when we talked about Lacan and of course desire, we ended our conversation on the point where we talked about object. That was the last question I had for you. And you very briefly and simply mentioned that object is something which is not the object of desire, but rather the the thing, the object which causes the desire, right? And you gave I mean, I have show and tell. You gave an example of the can and you said what is inside it is something that is the object of desire and the the can outside is I mean, the the can which limits my access to the object inside is the object.

[00:09:17]And well, this is an analogy or more of an example and you rightly said that object is something which cannot be grasped. It is not something which is tangible. It is intangible, right? And when I uploaded that video on the internet, right? And of course on Reddit, a A of people were not satisfied with that answer. I mean, they they thought it's uh they thought it's oversimplified and a lot of people took it back to explaining Freudian concept of das Ding and they linked it to the primary caregiver and they explained how is it that objet a developed or develops for Lacan in relation to the thing, das Ding, the Freudian thing.

[00:10:01]How true is that, Professor, and what is this development? What is this story of origin of das Ding and and of course of jouissance that we talk about?

[00:10:11]>> Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[00:10:13]Yeah, I mean People always accuse me of simplifying, so that doesn't surprise me, really.

[00:10:23]But yeah, so so in Seminar 7, so in 1959 Lacan developed the idea of das Ding, right? And and yes, there is the Freudian root to that idea, right? But it's das Ding is more Lacan's own concept. Like it it does come from the Freudian thing, but it's more his own concept. And and it is true to some extent that objet a kind of comes out of that. So he basically he talks about das Ding really in Seminar 7, Ethics of Psychoanalysis.

[00:11:02]And then not really so much afterward, where but he does start talking about objet a. So there is some in some way there's a transition from one to the other, but there there are times where he talks about them at the same time. So it's not like in any way objet a replaces das Ding for him or or no, they're separate and and it's true that das Ding is this is this figure of for him of I mean what it There's a There's a whole People talk about it in different ways.

[00:11:40]So, a lot of people will say das Ding is is the maternal thing. So, it's about It's this figure of the mother that's the figure of total enjoyment, right?

[00:11:50]Total jouissance.

[00:11:53]And then the objet a is just the in this way of thinking is just the remnant of that. Like it's the It's what we It's what's left over from that. And that's And so you In that way you should try to think them together. I mean, Lacan's way of putting it is very poetic and I don't know how helpful it is. He said, "Objet a is what tickles das Ding from the inside." This is what the only time he uses them in the same sentence, only one time, right?

[00:12:25]So, I think that's a fair way to think about objet a, but I think it I think the the problem with that is that he in his thinking develops The concepts never for Lacan are never just what they are, right? They're just never flat. They're never I've got it and then I'm going to use it and then it it's it just is what it is. I mean, maybe there are some and I'm It's hard for me to think of one. Maybe In the Name of the Father is one, but instead they undergo a kind of development. And that is true for objet a as well. So, yeah, initially I think you could say it does have this relation to das Ding and that's probably worth thinking about and keep But then I think it takes on a larger as the as the his thinking develops objet a becomes has a much more a broader ambit and I think it it becomes the like anytime it what what he comes to see I think is that the desire requires a cause.

[00:13:33]Like something that triggers it.

[00:13:35]And the reason I use the cocaine as the example is for him the cause is always and I think he got I think I don't know if we talked about this last time but I think he gets this from Johann Fichte the German idealist philosopher.

[00:13:50]That the cause is at once an obstacle and an impetus for us to desire. So it has this double status and Fichte called the Fichte's word in German is the Anstoß which means both things at once an obstacle and an impetus.

[00:14:06]And and that's what objet a is and I think that that okay yeah that it does have this original connection to das Ding but I think das Ding so much falls out of his thinking that he's so his main concern is with becomes for a while and not toward the end it changes again.

[00:14:29]Is this main concern is what is it that drives our desire and it's objet a that does that. It's this it's this it's this encounter with this obstacle that pushes us forward, right?

[00:14:46]>> When I was reading about it Professor and please again I mean this is the tradition if I'm wrong please correct me, right? So the the thing the thing was I read that the infant, right? Who has this immediate access to so much pleasure. Right? Which is not jouissance yet but just pleasure becomes painful after a point in time and I read an example it's like if you eat a lot if you keep eating which is pleasurable it becomes painful after a time. It's very similar to you know doom scrolling. If you keep scrolling your phone it becomes painful after a point in time and still keep going.

[00:15:22]So this is the thing for the infant, right? He's attached to this primary caregiver where he has immediate access to the pleasure, but after a point in time it becomes painful, right? And this is the beautiful line that Lacan writes in anxiety, right? Seminar 10. And he writes, "Don't you know that it's not longing for the maternal breast that provokes anxiety, but it's imminence."

[00:15:47]And this is where he's pointing that out. And then >> [clears throat] >> for him or for Freud, let's say, it's the thing that you meant mentioned, the name of the father, the symbolic castration where the father comes in the way, traditionally speaking, and says, "Well, you cannot have so much immediate access to pleasure. You have to desire things that are socially appropriate."

[00:16:09]Right? And I And I read that as a consequence of this, the child is separated from something which made its being because pleasure was the being of the child. And when something like that happens, the child is left with a structural lack, or maybe it results in a structural lack within the child. Now, throughout his life, the child goes on looking for this lack in the outer world. And this void and this lack therefore is a form of object Am I understanding it fairly correct or is this misled?

[00:16:45]>> Well, okay, I would say a couple of things about that. I would say it's really Yeah, I mean, object a is the form that the subject's lack takes. That I agree with.

[00:17:01]But, in terms of your description, like I'm not sure I think in Lacan's think I mean I There's a certain line of psychoanalytic thought that you're describing.

[00:17:13]And I think that is not Lacan's line of thought. But, I think he his idea is that yeah, there is a paternal prohibition, right? The name of the father the symbolic prohibition. But and I think this is absolutely crucial that that prohibition is the prohibition of an impossibility, not a possibility. So, what you described as this this infinite pleasure of the child at the breast.

[00:17:46]I think that that is not and I don't think this is Freud either. I don't think that's the Lacan's vision because I think his his idea is that we look back, we fantasize. Oh, yeah, there was this total bliss of the infinite, right? Of the infant infant infinite bliss of the infant.

[00:18:05]But that that wasn't there, right? Like there's just like it's just it's just nourishing, whatever. There's there's a lot of crying. There's just there's all kinds of there's all kinds of disruptions of it, right? And so I think that the the prohibition So, there is a prohibition as Lacan sees, but the prohibition is a is a and as you're right to say, the prohibition of of jouissance, the prohibition of enjoyment.

[00:18:37]But I think it's important for Lacan that it's a prohibition of something that is not possible in the first place.

[00:18:44]Right? Like we cannot have that enjoyment in the first place.

[00:18:50]And then the social order gets created out of a prohibition of what is impossible.

[00:18:56]That's the idea. I think that's the main idea of his thinking. That that idea that that what's prohibited is an impossibility and that I think you're right that that does then the objet a forms out of that relationship as as this form of access to the impossible, right?

[00:19:16]Like it's a it's it's we think through the objet a we can access this impossible thing that's been prohibited from us, but we can't. Like that's the whole point for Lacan that that we're inevitably lacking subjects. So, it's not it's not because of So, I think this is the key thing. It's not because of prohibition that we're lacking.

[00:19:38]Absolutely not. It's because of some fundamental impossibility that then prohibition paternal whatever prohibition comes along to signify. So, then the impossibility gets signified, and so then it seems like oh you know what? If we just got rid of this prohibition, then we could have access to the to the object. And that's why this famous slogan of May 1968 Lacan was very much against. Jouir sans entraves, which means enjoy without any limit, without any hindrance.

[00:20:14]Okay, here his point would be no. Like the the hindrance is is essential to the enjoyment, right? Like the hindrance And so, it's not just because there's a prohibition that we don't have this perfect enjoyment. The perfect enjoyment doesn't is impossible, and the prohibition in a way disguises that impossibility by prohibiting it.

[00:20:40]Okay.

[00:20:42]>> Right.

[00:20:45]Could you say more about uh the last thing that you mentioned where you say where you could not simply enjoy without limitation?

[00:20:53]Right? Could you could you say more about it it it in modern context using like body example?

[00:20:58]>> Yeah, yeah. So, so it's all for Lacan. So, there there is a time and we've mentioned a couple times seminar seven the ethics of psychoanalysis, where he associates enjoyment with transgression. So, the idea is And so, there are the limits very easy to see, right? Like you you I mean, we could think of a million examples of this, right? But so so, it's it's it's prohibited to to I don't know how what the law is in India, but it's prohibited to go in America to drink and drive, to get drunk and then go driving, right? It's prohibited.

[00:21:33]But it's also fun.

[00:21:35]I mean, why is it fun It's not fun intrinsically, but it's fun because it's against the law, you have to try to avoid the cops, you can go crazy, do crazy things, and you know you're doing something that's outside of the limit of the law.

[00:21:49]I'm not recommending people do it, but people do it.

[00:21:53]Cheating, I think, is another one, right? Like cheating like it's it's like having sex within married life is sort of whatever, tedious, right? But if you're with your with your lover outside and have to go to the hotel and do it clandestinely, that's exciting.

[00:22:13]So, that that there you can clearly see there's a limit, the transgression of it, there's enjoyment associated with it. But I think after seminar 7, Lacan kind of gives up on this idea and says, "No, it's actually it's just the limit itself that you enjoy. So, the the point would be even when you are transgressing the limit, what you're really enjoying is the limit itself. So, for instance, there's a speed limit on the road. I'm enjoying going 20 miles an hour over that, 20 km an hour over that, and the but the enjoyment is really tied to the limit. And that's And And I think that's true.

[00:23:01]That becomes more and more true for him.

[00:23:03]That that ceases to be the transgression and it becomes the limit, but but you can still see it in the same acts. Like even then it becomes you can see the enjoyment in the acts that are that don't have these wild that aren't wildly transgressive, but they still they they they they still flirt with that limitation, right? And if there if the limitation isn't there, then it's kind of like just I mean the Coke example, I don't want to come back to it, but anything where you you have an unlimited I mean, why is why is money seemingly enjoyable for us, right? Why is it? Because we have a limited amount of it. Like if we just were if we were just drowned if we just had all the money in the world we would it would it would cease to have any enjoyment power for us at all, right?

[00:23:56]There would be nothing to us. And I think that's true with anything, with sexual partners. I mean, why are sexual partners It's because like you've heard the saying like play hard to get, right? Like what you're you're when you're when you're seduced by someone who's playing hard to get, you're seduced by the limit that they're introducing into the relationship, right? But if they if someone's just I hate to use these terms, but if someone's just easy like if they're not they're just then then does there's no limit there. And so the the actual the pure the the total access to them becomes Again, to come back to the theory the topic the theme of the day, there's no objet a there, right? The the the limit is is linked or is is is is linked to obj objet a functions as a limit for us, right? It functions as a it's a limiting the limiting function, which then opens up enjoyment. It's That's And that's what look again, I think Lacan comes to think that more and more as he moves from das Ding to objet a in focus, right? So, that's kind of interesting that it's when he's mainly focused on das Ding in seminar seven, he's thinking about what he calls the jouissance of transgression, right? It's But then as he turns to objet a, it becomes much more jouissance of the enjoyment of the limit itself, not of the transgression.

[00:25:29]Not of the So, he ceases to be invested and and some people have said that it's the influence of Bataille over Lacan in seminar Georges Bataille who Lacan married his wife. So, it's an there is an interesting connection and they were friends anyway, but they but which means maybe you don't want Lacan as your friend cuz he's going to marry your Well, I don't know.

[00:25:55]But but Bataille was very into transgression and so maybe that influenced Lacan in that seminar seven, but there is a definite link between das Ding and transgression, objet a and limit, I think.

[00:26:09]>> So, it's like saying if there's a prohibition onto something, I don't really desire that thing, but I desire the prohibition because the prohibition stimulates my desire.

[00:26:20]>> Right, it keeps you desiring, exactly.

[00:26:23]It That's what because the whole But But like one of Lacan's great revolutions, I think.

[00:26:28]And is this in Freud? Kind of, but not explicitly.

[00:26:32]Is to say, well, we do And this is why I think objet a is different than those other objects you mentioned at the beginning, right? Because it is not about for him And I think you can you can They're all different ways to talk about it.

[00:26:48]But one of the ways might be the difference between satisfying your desire and realizing your desire, right?

[00:26:53]So, for him So, if we say realizing does not your desire is getting the object, whatever it is.

[00:27:00]Satisfying your desire for him means keep on desiring. So, for him, what matters is how can I keep on desiring, not what can I get?

[00:27:11]And I think that's what's different than these other objects, cuz they're about getting something, not about sustaining desire, and that's what That's what Lacan book is is much is much more concerned with is how does How is desire sustained, not how do I get How does it get realized in the object?

[00:27:36]>> I might be digressing, but this is interesting because now that you have mentioned about desire, I cannot help but ask a question regarding it. The last thing when we talked about desire, we were revolving around the We were revolving around the concept that once I get something, I don't want it anymore, and that is how desire works, right? But after the conversation, I thought about this, and it was how about the aspect of time in getting something?

[00:28:05]So, I'll give you an example. For example, I get something, and let's say I have an awareness that this might fade away within 10 days, or in the next month, or in the next 2 months. Then, that dismissal of desire, of that wanting, would it still be there, or would it fade away? So, let's say if I have this pen, and and I am aware that it will only last for a month. Do you not think I would be more >> [clears throat] >> susceptible to care for it and not take it for granted? And this is also the thing in modern relationships, when people say, "Well, you have me now, but that does not mean you have me forever.

[00:28:42]I could leave whenever I want, so please do not take me for granted." And this entire thing, right? The aspect of time, it does not let that desire fade away, if I'm not wrong. This is the first >> That's right. No, I think that's a great point.

[00:28:56]Yeah.

[00:28:58]>> Right. And And the second part would be when you talk about desire and drive, when you talk about satisfying your desire, and when you talk about satisfying your drive, because when I was reading about objet a, Lacan says desire is something that has arose against drive and jouissance.

[00:29:16]Right? So, I don't want to confuse the two terms, desire and drives. If you could explain the difference between satisfying one's desire and satisfying one's drive, if I'm making sense as >> Yeah, that makes sense.

[00:29:29]I think So, So, drive is what keeps This It's hard for me to separate what I think and what Lacan thinks. So, I don't know. I mean, so I might be just saying >> No, what about full I would like to know both the both the things. What Lacan >> so I don't know. I mean, I don't What I'm saying right now, somebody might say, "Oh, Lacan doesn't think that." But which is fine. I'm This is what I think.

[00:29:57]So, I think that drive is what keeps that it it is it is the series of So, so one of the things that Lacan does, which I think is one of his most important moves, is that he says there's only one drive, it's death drive. Right? So, he gets out of this Freudian dualism of the drives not by saying there's only Eros, there's only libidinal drive, but by saying actually, there's only death drive.

[00:30:27]And that self destruction, self-sabotage of death drive is what keeps us desiring.

[00:30:36]Right? Like that's how I make sense of this or I don't I mean, I I don't know if that's I'm not sure that that's Lacan's theory, but that's what I would say. And so >> And and how do you I'm sorry to cut you off, but how do you sabotage that drive, the death drive that you're talking about?

[00:30:52]>> No, no, no, no, death drive is the sabotaging. So, death drive works by sabotaging your self-interest. So, let's say I Anyway, well, okay, perfect example. So, when I was in when I was in high school, I was doing really well. It seemed like I was going to you know, go to a top college, and then I one day for before school, I drank a lot of rum, and I went to school drunk, and I got thrown out of school, right? So, that was clearly a totally self-destructive act, right?

[00:31:27]Like totally totally acted against myself-interest, hurt my chances to go to university that I wanted to go to, all these things.

[00:31:37]So, but that was an instance of death drive.

[00:31:40]So, death drive is satisfied by sabotaging your self-interest, but that ends up You see how that ends up sustaining you and your desire, because it gives you more things to It keeps your desire fed. The more you sabotage yourself If you're able to just follow your self-interest, if we were able to just self-interested beings, that would stifle in some way our desire, but death drive is the way that we sustain and keep our desire nourished, I think. That that would be my claim.

[00:32:17]>> When you when you talk about self-interest, I get I get a sight of, you know, like my own desire. But when when you hear Lacan talk about desire, he says, "Well, the desire is a desire of the other, right?" And it could mean a lot of things, right? To desire to become the object of desire for the other. You desire someone else's desire, right? By that logic, when I say I want to know what my own desires are, do you not think that sounds like a futile question because you don't have a desire of your own?

[00:32:43]>> Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree. But But it's different. I think you're talking about two different things cuz I think I totally agree with what you're saying about desire and that it doesn't make sense even to talk about what's my own desire because as you're saying my desire is the desire of the other except it does make sense in this sense that I'm my desire is what I interpret the desire of the other to be, right?

[00:33:10]And so that interpretation is always singular and it always it's always going to be up in the air because the other's desire is unconscious to the other. So the other can't just tell me, "Oh, this is what I want you to do."

[00:33:26]because they don't even know themselves.

[00:33:28]So this is this is why if you're ever in a relationship and someone says, "I want you to do XYZ."

[00:33:35]Uh it doesn't it it it might turn out if you do those things it'll destroy the relationship, right? So it's it's it always involves your interpretation.

[00:33:45]But my point about self-interest, I'm just saying things that are for and I I don't think self-interest I think self-interest and desire are opposed.

[00:33:54]I think self-interest are just things that advance your I don't know, life chances, chances of survival.

[00:34:00]But keep your you know, benefit you in some way financially socially, whatever.

[00:34:10]But I think desire works in a whole in a different way in the way that you're saying. Like it's it's about our relationship to the other and to the and and how we interpret that desire of the other.

[00:34:26]>> You You rightly pointed out that the other does not know what they desire. And neither do I, because a lot of it is a lot of it is unconscious, right? And therefore, I could not point out that this is what I really desire, and I could tell the other person. So, do you not think by that criteria saying that the desire is a desire of the other, or desire is a other's desire could not make sense eventually, because everything then boils down to interpretation.

[00:35:00]>> That's right. No, that's right. That's That's exactly right. So, that's exactly right. And Lacan says this is in seminar six, which is desire in its interpretation, he says desire is interpretation.

[00:35:14]So, he ends up exact saying exactly what you just said, that desire is nothing but the way that we interpret the other's desire, which and the other at the same time is interpreting us and our desire to understand what their desire should be. So, so, it's a it's a it's always this act of interpretation at the heart of desire. That I think that is really, really crucial, and I think it what it what it does is and I think this is pretty clear it really socializes the psychoanalytic project, right?

[00:35:54]Because it makes it clear that you're not you have to be in relation to the other and interpreting the other all the time in order to even form your desires don't preexist, right? They don't preexist.

[00:36:08]They form out of how you're what you're interpreting the other to want from you, right? Like that's that like Lacan's famous Italian phrase from seminar 11, "Che vuoi?" What do you What is it you want from me, right? And not And that's the that's the act of interpretation that then forms my own desire. So, what what's most I think what's really interesting about this to me is and you can see I think why film and literary thinkers were attracted to Lacan because that's what they're doing all the time is interpreting.

[00:36:47]And I think what he's saying is what's most singular about us is is the way that we interpret. Right? The way that we interpret the other and the other's desire is what makes us who we are. That's what That's our singular subjects. Not oh, what is this desire I had in the first place? What's my most original desire? Who cares? What matters is how do you interpret the other's desire?

[00:37:10]That's how you form your own.

[00:37:15]>> Does when somebody asks you, "What do you want?" and you say, "I don't know."

[00:37:19]You're just being honest because you don't know.

[00:37:22]>> Right. That's about >> Right.

[00:37:23]>> Right.

[00:37:23]>> Right. Exactly.

[00:37:26]>> [clears throat] >> Coming back to the thing that we left objet a. I mean, we digressed a little, but it was needed.

[00:37:34]Lacan I mean, of course, we all know about the famous three registers and we talked about it in the last conversation we had.

[00:37:44]Lacan is keen on observing or I would say the last time when we talked we talked about subjectivity and how that is very neat.

[00:37:55]Central to what Lacan is doing, right?

[00:37:57]And in this project of subjectivity, Lacan is focused on developing or at least knowing the various forms of otherness, right? What possibly could be other to me, right? I'm the subject and what possibly is the other? So, he develops the symbolic order that is the other, the big other, right? The real, then the imaginary. And then there is also something which is objet a, right? Because objet a is also a kind of other, but it is nowhere in the three registers of Lacan. So, my next question is, Professor, what is the relation of object R in relation to all three registers of Lacan? Object R in relation to the big other, object R in relation to the real, and the imaginary. Am I making sense with the question?

[00:38:42]>> Yeah, that's a good question, and I think it doesn't I think that that there's so there's a lot of different answers to this question by different thinkers. So, I think different people would say different things. I think there are people that would say object R is real.

[00:38:59]Full stop. That's it.

[00:39:01]But, I think the I think the best answer is and Lacan I think waffles. So, sometimes he'll say one thing, sometimes he'll say another thing. I think the best answer is it partakes of every one of those fields. So, there's an imaginary aspect to the object R, which may be the way that it shows up to us. There's a symbolic aspect to the object R, which may be the way it fits or doesn't fit within the symbolic structure. And then the real I think is the clearest connection to object R, that it that it that it is constantly thwarting our attempts to make sense of it and to reduce it to the field of sense. And so, Lacan in in seminar 11 gives a couple of examples of object R, right? And so, one's from his personal experience, where he was out as a I think it was in summer when he was a college student and he's slumming it in the south of France at a fishing village. And man, most people probably know the story. And the guy that he was with out on a boat says, "Do you see that?" And the guy's making fun of him.

[00:40:05]He says, "Do you see that can? It's a sardine can glittering in the ocean." He says, "Do you see that can? You see it, but it doesn't see you." And then Lacan says, "Okay, that hurt my feelings, but but" and the guy got a little chuckle out of it because his point was I didn't fit within this world. Nobody Nobody cared about me here, right? I thought I was making doing this big thing and it didn't matter.

[00:40:28]But he said, "But if what the He said the guy's name was Petitjean, that's what Lacan calls him. So if what he said had made any sense at all, it was it had to mean that the object saw me nonetheless."

[00:40:41]And what did he What did he mean by that? Well, he What he meant was that can was the way in which it marked the way in which Lacan didn't fit in his in that world.

[00:40:54]And so that is his that is the way I think that's that one really really important way to think of objet a. Now, it's interesting because clearly the sardine can has a symbolic importance. It has an It's an image. It fits in within the imaginary field.

[00:41:11]But what will Lacan was drawing attention to with it as an objet a is that it is real because it it completely disrupts his thinking about his own symbolic status that and and his ability to integrate himself into that world of the fishing village. So, the the objet a marked the way in which we don't fit.

[00:41:34]And and the other example he gives is from this painting by Hans Holbein called The Ambassadors.

[00:41:40]Same thing, there's this anamorphic skull in the front of the painting that you can only see when you look from the top right of the painting down.

[00:41:51]Otherwise, it just looks like a blotch going across the painting. And then when you look up and look down at it or look down and to the left, it looks like you can see, oh, it's a skull. And so, the point is that that these two world travelers don't see the role of death in front that's right there in front of them.

[00:42:12]But also, the point is that the spectator of the painting, the viewer of the painting, can only see it when they move. And so, it shows the way in which the painting takes the desire of the spectator into account. So, it it's it's the way that the spectator fits at this point that doesn't fit because it's anamorphic. It doesn't fit within the rest of the logic of the painting.

[00:42:40]But it's the point at which the spectator is included in the painting.

[00:42:42]So, I think those are great examples because they're all about how your you fit in only by not fitting in, and that's objet a, right? That that objet a marks that point at which you fit only at the point where you don't fit, where there's a there's a there's a kind of a a a a something that doesn't work within the apparatus. That's where you are as a subject.

[00:43:13]>> This has a paradoxical connotation to it. Now, I could not help but point out that Professor Zizek said something very similar in Plague of Fantasies, if I'm not mistaken, that objet a is a paradox, and it's a paradox because of the relation between its emergence and loss.

[00:43:35]So, the very moment it emerges, it does so as a lost object.

[00:43:42]Well, what does it mean, Professor, that it emerges only as a lost subject? What is that?

[00:43:49]>> The lost object. Because the point would be that if you ever tried to grasp it positively, right? Then it it it disintegrates, right? It only exists in so far as like like the skull in The Ambassadors, it exists once you see it, okay, you can see it as a skull but you cannot and I think this is the key thing you cannot simultaneously look at the skull and look at the rest of the painting that you have to adjust yourself so you can't really see the rest of the painting, right? So the point is that it doesn't fit within the positive field of other objects. So once it is made to fit it ceases to be objet a once it emerges as objet a it no longer fits as an object within the like before before Petitjean saw the sardine can it was just another part piece of garbage in the ocean, right?

[00:44:52]But once he points it out to Lacan basically as objet a then it ceases to be all of a sudden Lacan loses his bearings and it it ceases to be the the just another piece of trash in the ocean and and no longer exists just as an object it becomes it emerges as objet a.

[00:45:12]So that's that's why it can't an object can't exist and again this is I think why objet a cannot be just derived from transitional object or the partial or the bad object any of these things from Klein or Winnicott Winnicott or Klein because of this exactly what Slavoj was talking about the way that it it emerges only when it's no longer there as part of the positive field and when it disappears as objet a then it emerges again as the object in the positive field of objects.

[00:45:50]>> And and how is it like how is it that these the four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis, right? Unconscious, repetition, drive and transference related to share with the uh because I heard you mention that it might not be one of the most fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis, but it's again the most fundamental object of psychoanalysis.

[00:46:15]>> No, I think yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a great question. I love this question.

[00:46:20]And I think the answer is it's actually the fundamental object or the fundamental concept, right? Like it is I think I think I mean the seminar is weird because for one thing art don't I always think, well, wait a minute.

[00:46:37]What are these four fundamental For one thing, repetition and drive are basically the same thing in Lacan's thinking. So, how are those and and and he devotes so much time in the seminar.

[00:46:51]He devotes four sections to gaze.

[00:46:53]He devotes so much time to objet a.

[00:46:56]You say to yourself, wait a minute. How is that not its own concept? And repetition hardly gets anything.

[00:47:04]So, other than when it's discussed in terms of drive. So, I I really I don't know what to make of that other than he's just I don't know. I think it was done in a kind of an ad hoc way because as you probably know that year Lacan was giving a seminar called The Names of the Father that he then he was tossed from the Hopital Saint Anne, the place where he was giving the seminar because he was thrown out of the International Psychoanalytical Association. And so his seminar seminar was homeless.

[00:47:40]And when Althusser let him gave him a room at the Ecole Normale he he he started a new seminar, which became Four Fundamental Concepts. So, I don't know. I mean, I wonder if if he just didn't put it together kind of ad hoc and we try to make too much of it of the concepts he names and don't think like oh, what's being disguised here is that the real fundamental concept is objet a. And I think the fact that in seminar 21, as I mentioned, that he says this is the one thing that I invented. I think this is where he thinks this is where his bread is buttered. This is what he thinks.

[00:48:18]This is the concept and I think it it led him to move away from das thing as he starts to discover objet a, right?

[00:48:26]So, I think it's really it's I I I think it's impossible to overestimate the importance of it for him, right?

[00:48:39]Like I think you're right to have a whole discussion of it. I mean, it's really it is the concept for him.

[00:48:47]>> And and and again, I mean the question remains intact, how is this concept the fundamental object of psychoanalysis relating to all these four things?

[00:48:58]The >> Right. Right. Right. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah.

[00:49:01]Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so here there's a couple interesting things about So, I think it is the object of drive, right? Like the drive is constantly both driven by objet a and reproducing objet a, right? That's what drive does.

[00:49:23]And and the repetition of drive is is this repetition driven by the fail encounter with the objet a.

[00:49:30]So, that I think those two, it's pretty clear.

[00:49:36]I think the unconscious is again, like that's where we've talked a lot about desire.

[00:49:46]For Lacan, all desire is unconscious desire. So, if desire is driven also by the objet a, then that activates the That's how the unconscious gets activated from. So, in a way, all these concepts have a kind of a similar relationship to objet a, right? That they're they're driven by it in some way.

[00:50:08]Transference is the most interesting cuz I think so my friend Guy Le Gaufey wrote a book called just called objet a, right? It's a really great book. I don't think it's No, I know it hasn't been translated in anything, but it's in French.

[00:50:26]And he says that, "Look, it's in seminar eight, which is right after seven with Dasein, obviously, seminar eight, which is on the transference, that Lacan really discovers objet a, although he doesn't name it. So, what he what he names instead is the is a It's a long discussion of of Plato's Symposium or Le Banquet, the the dialogue from Plato.

[00:50:52]And and and he talks a lot about the agalma of Socrates. And that become that concept ends up leading to the discovery of objet a. So, I think you could say that transference, in so far as it's the transference seminar, and it's the way transference functions with Socrates, that's what Lacan is trying to understand, right? He's using Socrates as a way to understand how transference functions in psychoanalysis.

[00:51:22]But that's where That's where he discovers objet a because the the the the analyst or Socrates is assumed to have it, right? And it only is it in so far as you don't have it.

[00:51:40]And then, once you get it, you realize it's nothing. And And so, this becomes Lacan Lacan will develop this as a theory of psychoanalysis, I think. That of how analysis has to both start and then end. That and and he's developing this in seminar 11 as he's laying out this developing objet a. He's talking about how transference works and he says, "First you have to suppose the analyst to know." Right? So you have to suppose that the analyst has some shiny objet a that's going to unlock the secrets of everything.

[00:52:20]And then at the end of and analysis ends when you realize, "You know what? The what the analyst had really wasn't anything at all." And so the object the that object falls out and he even says it's like a piece of waste.

[00:52:37]Right? It's like a The analyst just becomes and can be discarded, flushed, really, like a piece of waste at the end of analysis. So I think transference may be for Lacan the crucial concept for leading to the discovery of objet a just because of the way that objet a he conceives objet a working in psychoanalysis and in Plato's Symposium, the way that Soc- the the way that Alcibiades we see his desire for Socrates emerge.

[00:53:13]So I think that ironically, cuz you would think, "Oh no, it's more linked to drive or unconscious or whatever." But ironically, I think it's transference of all the four fundamental concepts that really is the one that has the link to objet a.

[00:53:32]>> Hey. Professor I hearing all of this had to bring back a question that I asked you in our last conversation.

[00:53:43]And please bear with me, right? So, the question concerns of course the Coca-Cola can, right? And I really want to ask when when you say that it is the object ah that is the cause, the object cause of my desire, not the object of desire. I really want to know then what is my relation, my relation as a subject, to the object that I'm desiring. And what if there is an absence of object ah?

[00:54:09]Will I Let's say if I'm thirsty, will I not drink from this can or from anything else, let's say a glass of water, right?

[00:54:18]If there is an absence of object ah, so the question is >> Well, >> the kind of phenomenological phenomenological aspect to object ah or or I could say like if object ah is the thing that causes my desire, which is actually for another object, then what is the mechanism? That is what I want to know.

[00:54:41]Right.

[00:54:42]>> Right. Right.

[00:54:45]I think there can be a lot of mechanisms for that arising, right? Like sometimes it can just arise out in the world. Like there can be certain limits or barriers or obstacles that arise. But why does that Why do those particular obstacles function as an impetus for you as a subject, right? And I think that has to do with your own personal history as a subject, etc. Like I I think it's always that's always going to be singular, I think. And so, I hesitate to answer this in any kind of global way because I think the way that the object ah arises can be so it's just dependent on these individual differences. It doesn't I don't think there's a there's a one way that it necessarily has to happen because I think it can happen in multiple ways and and but I do think just to come back to what you said, I do think it is absolutely true that without an objet a, your unconscious desire cannot be roused.

[00:55:50]Which is not to say you're not going to do something, right? You can do something. Like I'm a little thirsty, so I'm going to just take a little drink of water, but it's not because I mean, okay, you could say there was a barrier, blah blah blah, like I have my thirst function.

[00:56:08]Whatever, but but I didn't have there was no desire in the water. There was just nothing, right? There was just So, I think there are a lot of things that we do during the day that don't arouse our unconscious desire, but it has to in order for it to be aroused, there has to be an objet a operative. And I think that's why that's why so I think capitalists are great at the use of the objet a, right?

[00:56:37]Like what do they do? They're constantly putting up obstacles to us that then entice us to desire. And why do we desire those things? Well, because we think the other does. So, it comes back to this question of what the other is desiring. And how does that get communicated to us? Like one of the ways has to be through advertisement, right?

[00:57:00]Advertisement is saying, "Look, the other desires this thing."

[00:57:05]Or this object. You need to desire it, too.

[00:57:08]But sorry, there's an objet a in the way. You're going to have to work extra hours to be able to afford it, or you're going to have to tear through the packaging, or you're going to have to drive a long way to get it, or you have to something, right?

[00:57:21]There's going to always be some barrier functioning as an objet a, but we're constantly told what the desire of the other is by I mean, that's what influencers are Influencers are, right?

[00:57:33]Like they're influencers are saying, "This is what the other desires, and you should desire this, too."

[00:57:38]And that's why that's their whole job.

[00:57:40]It's a kind of amazing. I mean, it's I mean, it's a it's like they read Lacan, and they thought, "Oh, this is the thing I someone needs information on what the other desires. I'm going to provide it."

[00:57:50]And that'll be my job. How can that be a job? But it is a job, right? People do have that as a job.

[00:57:56]So, that's what I'd say. It arises by how how why we take an interest in a certain objet a arises as a result of how we interpret the other's desire and the way that we're I mean, I we're constantly bombarded with messages about what the other desires.

[00:58:18]And how we interpret those is what causes the certain objet a to be activated for us. Because certain things could potentially be an objet a. They're never activated, right? Like you encounter a million barriers every day as you're walking through your life. You just you just don't even think about it.

[00:58:32]You're just like, "Whatever."

[00:58:34]Right? You don't think like, "Oh, I'm walking past my neighbor's apartment, and that door is locked." I don't think, "Well, how could I get p- I my desire's aroused. How do I get past that door?"

[00:58:44]Right? You don't think that. You don't care. You're like, "Whatever. I hate that neighbor. That guy's an idiot anyway. I don't want to I don't care what that person's doing inside. I don't want to know. There's no secrets in there that are valuable to me."

[00:58:56]Because nothing around like that objet a it doesn't function as an objet a for you. It potentially could.

[00:59:02]Like if you heard some strange noise there, or you heard people saying, "Oh, only cool events are going on in that out." Then you'd walk past, you'd say, "Aha.

[00:59:11]I wish I could get past that door."

[00:59:13]Right? But But most of the time you don't. Maybe all the time you don't. So, something has to That's how I mean, I think it's nice cuz we kind of come full circle because that connects this question of what is that our desire the desire of the other to object ah that if you don't have this notion of this is something the other desires or this is something I should desire the thing's not going to function as an object ah it's just not going to be able to right you just let's be certain a certain just a stupid blockage like that you don't care about it's a stupid barrier it just doesn't mean anything to you.

[00:59:51]Right? Like like like I I I don't know about you but I pass do you have these things in in your like gated community where they are gated you can't even go in because they're only the wealthy live there?

[01:00:04]Maybe you don't have that I hope you don't have that. Yeah not really it's a it's a perversion of America no.

[01:00:10]>> Not have it out there but always had in sight so >> Okay it's in your head okay okay yeah I get it I get it.

[01:00:16]But we have these things and I look at that and I I just it kind of makes me sick I don't even care I I absolutely do not want to go past that gate.

[01:00:23]Right? So it doesn't work for me.

[01:00:26]It doesn't so I think that that that you have to have [laughter] the object ah activated by the desire of the other otherwise it doesn't work.

[01:00:38]It doesn't function as an object ah it's just a stupid barrier.

[01:00:42]>> Yeah I mean it's like saying because when I read the definition that you gave to me that object ah is the object cause of desire the barrier that stimulates desire I mean I go around and I have a lot of barriers in every day >> Who are you? No care no you don't care they're not thinking.

[01:00:57]>> Exactly.

[01:00:59]>> Right?

[01:00:59]>> Right.

[01:01:00]>> I mean I have a total barrier in becoming the president of US today but I don't want it that doesn't mean I want it right? So if the object does not mean we want the thing itself so that is an interesting loophole >> President act why would anyone want to do that right?

[01:01:15]>> And and that is an interesting point because you say the even if there is an object even if there is a prohibition that does not mean I would desire it until and unless there is the desire of the other involved in that equation.

[01:01:29]>> Absolutely. Absolutely. And so, I think that's why people I think that's why people objected to my example, right? Because I didn't stress there has to be this element of in some way But, I mean that's what I mean that's what that's the job of the Coca-Cola corporation, right? Like they're working on creating uh our minds to think that the desire of the other is to drink Coke. Right? So, I mean that was back in the background of what I was saying, but I think that that is that always has to be operative for an object ought to emerge. Because if there's not that desire of the other, it's just a it's just a limit or a barrier. It doesn't mean anything.

[01:02:09]>> I know we are we are about to time limit. We're beyond it, but only a few more questions and I I promise I won't keep you for long. Right? Talking about the Coca-Cola company, right? I just have two more questions. The first question is when I talk about this company, right? And it's very interesting because I read about it and I'm like I'm fascinated about the idea of it. So, about the Coke, you know, Miller has this very interesting thing that Coke in itself is very paradoxical because I I I drink it and it does not quench as my thirst. It does not I want it more, right? The more I drink it, the more I want it, right? And therefore >> [clears throat] >> the interesting part to this is that because Zizek Professor Zizek calls it the perfect commodity, right? And he says whenever you if you go back and if you see the slogans of the Coca-Cola company, it would say this is it. And the it in itself uh reflects some metaphysical niceties to it that I mean, man, you've got it, right?

[01:03:04]But, and at the same time, this is same with big companies such as Nike as well.

[01:03:08]They write on their shoe logos do it without clarifying what the it is, right? And Zizek keeps wondering about it. I mean, I do not know what it precisely means.

[01:03:18]And therefore, my question arises that when I drink a Coke, right? When I drink a normal Coke, and the Coke has all these nutritional facts because as like Professor Zizek says, you only desire a Coke for two reasons, either for the nutritional facts or for the taste of it, right? But when you drink something like this, a Diet Coke, which has no nutritional value and everything is like zero, zero, zero, zero, zero in like grams, right? And it's absence There's an absence of caffeine as well.

[01:03:48]You're drinking precisely nothing in guise of something, right? So, that is one. And my question from this is then how is it that objet a transforms something so sublime in into something so shitty? I mean, a waste product, right? If it's making sense as you question because because it's the title of the book, The Sublime Object. And if I'm not wrong, this is what even Professor Zizek is talking about when he talks about the sublime object. So, this is what I want to know that how is it that the objet a transforms the sublime object into a piece of [ __ ] >> Well, it does it I mean, it does both things, right? Like it it turns something that's just worthless, has no nutritional value, etc. doesn't quench your thirst into something that is the sublime value.

[01:04:34]And then, when it falls out, when you've when you're finished with it, you realize I got nothing at all. So, that's this piece of [ __ ] thing. Like it doesn't It's precisely because objet a has no actual positive existence. That's why it ends up being a a thing of nothing, right? I mean, that's a quote from Hamlet, right? Like like the the king he says the king is the thing the a thing a thing a thing of nothing, right? And that's true of objet a. Like it's a it's a thing of nothing. And that's I think for all of what Slavoj Zizek said about Hegel and Lacan, that I think that's the best thing he ever said. It's when he said Coke was the perfect commodity because it's not only does it not quench your thirst, but it is a you you can't really drink it to to to act to eliminate thirst. It actually it's a it's it's dehydrating and it's a diuretic, so it makes you have to urinate and it makes you thirstier. So, it really it has an opposite function of what it's supposed to do. So, so it's a pure enjoyment tool, right? It's a pure enjoyment tool.

[01:05:42]And I think the problem is once you finish it, then you then it turned then it has this dropping down as you say into into pure waste into pure nothing. So, it it is first the object oddness of it makes it sublime, but then that's why it also turns into nothing when it's gone. Unlike other foods, right? That's why it's not a other foods aren't perfect commodities, right? If you eat a banana, you get a nice little healthy you get a lot of potassium. So, a banana is not a perfect commodity at all because you get a benefit from it.

[01:06:16]Right? So, it doesn't have that nothing dimension of it that the Coke does.

[01:06:23]>> And Professor, why is that when when I say that the more I get of something, the more I want, right? Because it's it's contradictory. Let's say if I need something and I get it, I say I want more of it, right? So, the more I have, the more I need. If I drink one can, I will be like, I want another can tomorrow. And I read something online and it was I think from Shakespeare, right? From one of the characters of Shakespeare's where from Romeo and Juliet, I believe, right?

[01:06:51]Where where Juliet says, the the more the more I give, and she's talking about love, right? The more I give, the more I have. It's the exact opposite of how desire functions, right? Right? Because in in in in common parlance, when I say it about an object I desire, I want it more and more even if I have a lot of let's say about money, right? If I want I I say I want money and the more money I have, the more money I want. But with love it's like the more I give is the more I have. Why is there a contradiction between desire and love then, Professor? The last >> All right. I think it's a good question.

[01:07:30]Yeah, I mean it's definitely true.

[01:07:32]Why are the richest people in the world the most avaricious? It's true It's true, right? Or the they are. They're the ones that want the most.

[01:07:40]Yeah, I think that's right. That desire that that love I mean love emerges out of desire, but it does I think the thing about love is that it gets that that it involves rather than taking, it involves giving.

[01:08:01]And I think that's the that's the fundamental difference. So that that that of course you have to desire the person that you love, but if you love them, you're also willing to you're What are you doing? You're placing them.

[01:08:18]And I think this is the crucial thing.

[01:08:20]You place the person that you love above the big other for you, right? So they they function for you as more important than the big other. So what they So you And this this allows you I think it's interesting cuz it allows you if you're in love with someone, you don't mind So in the US we have this thing called a mainly I said mainly in high schools called a public display of affection.

[01:08:48]You're not allowed to do it because it I don't know. It kind of disturbs the peace or whatever.

[01:08:54]But you you do that you don't care. If you're in love with someone, you don't care that everyone's looking at you and thinking you're dumb or thinking you're grotesque or you just don't care because you've elevated that person above everyone else. And so, I think that's what leads Juliette to say what she does about love. The more that I give, the more that I have because I'm giving to this person that that means more to me than everyone else, right? And so, you've you're giving to someone that then is is is is is shaping your world and shaping your desire a new every time. So, I mean, I think that's the difference between love and desire is love is constantly reshaping our desire, whereas desire is just kind of reproducing itself. So, love is always being disturbed, I think, in a way that desire is not.

[01:09:50]Right?