08 April 2021

Simulation

I have recently come across a debate over the simulation hypothesis which roughly says that the universe is an artificial simulation, just like a computer simulation, and that reality is a virtual one like The Matrix. My intention here is not to explain the formation of one’s reality, a subject that is addressed into my publication on Jacque Lacan’s concept of the Mirror Stage, but to make an intervention that adds to a previous article I wrote.

The prementioned debate gives rise to the question of why, independently of whether the simulation hypothesis is true or false, it would be so important for someone to believe in or even to go against such an idea - “against” is still a dependence on its existence. Would this affect their way of living? We could agree on the aspect of our desire to find out how things work, and via these discoveries construct tools that will assist our life. Yet, the current insistence takes place over a topic that has no practical application but only bears a satisfaction for verifying or falsifying one’s limitations. We may also wonder here as well, which limitations?

Hence the simulation hypothesis is only sustained in its philosophical dimension, that is to say in the ancient play of thought invented by man to address their premordial questions that concern their subjectivity and ultimately life itself. Removing ourselves from the debate of true or false, we can very well say that the exploration of the universe is at the same time an exploration of our consciousness.  Literally, because the universe we know is not what it is in itself but what we merely perceive, observe, measure, describe or puzzle ourselves onto. In these terms, the universe as we know it is already a simulation of our thought in the same way that Descartes stated “I think therefore I am”. Adding this to the fact that thought itself is part of the universe, we can even further say that universe and thought are reflections of one another, summed up in Alan Watts’ beautiful statement “You are the universe experiencing itself.”

However, what is usually omitted in the philosophical thought is the dimension of enjoyment and the desire of the speaking being. What we can thus say if one puts too much stress on the belief of a universe as simulation, is that they undoubtedly require it as a support, but to what? Not in order to explain the universe as simulation of their thought, but to rather make up a reasoning for their thought as simulation of something else, i.e. how they find themselves living remotely, in a third person’s perspective, just like a simulation, whereby their thought process unwillingly takes their life out of control and their true desire out of track. Proving that the universe is a simulation would then mean unveiling the truth of their unwanted choices and actions, something that is not always clear at first glance. If, for example, one would lose the motivation for their actions in the case of discovering that the universe is a simulation, it means that they never wanted to perform those actions, which were therefore directed from the very beginning by whatever or whoever is supposed to control the simulation, and, by extension, controls their very thought!

Would, then, the attachment on such a hypothesis mean that one is searching for a reason to stop their unwanted actions, or would they simply go on by accusing something beyond themselves for their decisions? The answer is irrelevant, because in either case what is at stake is that one denies their responsibility for the actions they never take! Which actions? These towards the things that cannot be found in any sort of studies which attempt to simulate what it is for one to live by a univers-al formula for well-being with statistics and numbers, namely, the very actions that constitute one’s own way of breathing and that we call “desire”.

For those who are truly in line with their desire, the non-existence of a simulation is irrelevant too.

26 March 2021

The Heav(enl)y Reward

It is a fact that setting a goal for oneself to aim at, produces the corresponding mental coordinates that navigate their actions to its achievement and a motive that provides orientation for the work in progress. Yet why is it so common that people lose themselves in the course of this work, usually as a sense of failure and disappointment, or even as what has been named burnout over the last few years? Multiple motivational quotes are then invocated to assist the suffering person, by further encouraging their work… and their life whose definition has become identical to the word work: “Never give up!” “The only barrier is You!” “Believe in yourself!” “Become a better You!” etc. only for one to come across the same affects that sooner or later happen to re-emerge, sometimes even more powerfully.

Our life experience enlightens us with all the answers from which we draw natural conclusions: Why would there be a burnout if not by some forced labour? And why would there be any disappointment at all, if not due to a failed expectation of being rewarded by our efforts? It is of course inevitable that one demands a reward for their efforts if what they do is something they don’t want to, namely, something they are forced to do.

We may hence well justify that the goal which has initially been set and which directs the subject’s actions has never truly been something the subject themselves desired, or at least not on their own terms. And what’s more, that once the subject is led to the belief that this is their own desire, then the illusion is formed that they like working for it!
 
This is what happens when the goal is based on some sort of idealisation, that is to say a formed ideal image of myself, a future perfect version of me, the one I would like to be and thus I am currently not. “I am not”, signifies that one is negated when they identify with that image: losing any sort of presence in their life by being absorbed into the perfection of the image of a future self.

Trying to become a better version of oneself towards ideality means that the ideal image only motivates work that comes with the promise of some payback, i.e. to be rewarded with something that will complete their image of perfection. Within that discourse there is anticipation that one will be able to get enjoyment once the requirements of the ideal are fulfilled. Consequently, if the reward is not received, the body suffers because the promised object of payback is not received and the image remains incomplete, in other words, fragmented. But isn’t it an oxymoron that the body is experienced as heavy when a part is missing? Why does this happen? Because one is unable to perceive the whole operation of the ideal, namely, that what is experienced as missing from one’s body is not the lack of any anticipated object but the excess of labour itself, i.e. the expended effort towards the ideal; it is precisely because of this effort that one demands compensation. The subject is caught in a vicious circle, stemming from the fact that an ideal image is introjected as one’s true identity. Vicissitudes come by definition in one’s life once the establishment of the ideal image takes place.

How could all this be simplified more, if not by saying that one demands payment only when working for someone other than themselves! The subject is so consumed and absorbed in this process, that in the statement “I am doing this for myself”, the self does not even refer to themselves as a subject but to how they are objectified for some Other who nominates and thus chooses the ideal that the subject takes as their identity: this is precisely the heaviness in taking (i.e. taking the identity of the ideal) which produces the effect of an image of the body that is missing something. As such, the ideal represents the Other incarnating the ‘law’ or ‘rules’ that conduct (a great synonym for order) the subject’s direction of work, and from whom the reward is demanded.

Psychoanalyst Petros Patounas describes true desire as “asking nothing from no one”. Indeed, working towards one’s own desire does not have any reward as its aim, that is to say any object that would complete their body and bring enjoyment, because the very act of working is what makes heaven and defines the body (Patounas calls this mode of being ErgOn). It is an enjoyment independent of the Other. The expectation of a reward only comes when someone acts according to rules for trade, whereby a certain measure is applied as a unit of exchange that defines the fair compensation for the subject’s sacrifice. A sacrifice of what? That of their desire: The subject demands a reward as compensation for giving up their own desire. This of course shouldn’t be misinterpreted as “I do not give, because I don’t want to get anything back from anyone”, because it is still caught up in the discourse of fair exchange: “I don’t give” is in this case related to “I don’t get… a fair exchange”.
 
And, if this is pushed to an extreme, if one declares that something they want is of their own desire but they do nothing to achieve it, or find all sorts of excuses while blaming others, then not only is it not their desire, because blaming others means they ask others for something, but they also demand to be instantly rewarded for exchanging their subjectivity with the idealised image they believe they want.

An honourable statement against the anticipation of life in a future self, would be something that one usually hears in the aforesaid motivational quotes, but which is mostly derived from eastern thought, that one should live in the present. There is a nice play on words here whereby people in their ideal and perfect image lose their present, in both its meanings: the present as temporal and the present as gift. Gift is a nice word for the reward itself, the gift of life. Yet, this quote is often misinterpreted into another idealisation whereby one may short-circuit the ideal image into a demand to acquire absolute enjoyment now as if there is no tomorrow, which is to say that everything will end. What an ideal way to reach a goal! True present is timeless, a never ending one.

It isn’t hard for someone to distinguish what is aligned with their desire from that which is caught up in an ideal, because the experience of their effects on the body speaks for itself: Desire is about aligning one’s actions to whatever supports their breath just by doing it, that is to say, their very act is their own breath. For example, if there is any sort of pressure in helping or serving a fellow person, then there is a hidden expectation of respect and reward, even if this reward is expected from the justice of a God.
 
Christian tradition in its own terms uses the word Theosis (Θέωσις) to describe the destination of all humans, the ultimate goal, whereby one becomes a god. This is a goal beyond any idealisation, because one can only become a god when their deeds do not demand any reward from (any form of) God. And it is certain at this point that the original sin, i.e. eating the fruit that would make one a god, has been from the beginning all about aiming at the deification of oneself that has nothing to do with ‘Τheosis’ – a magnificent word for ‘Desire’ –, but with the assimilation of the object that would complete one’s ideal image to perfection.

The essay above is part of the book The Image of a Voice which is available here


'Adam and Eve'. Illustration by Stella Violari,
illustrator of the book The Image of a Voice


10 March 2021

Split: Desire, a “bad” Valentine

 “I love you, but, because inexplicably I love in you something more than you - the object petit a - I mutilate you.

Jacques Lacan, Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis


Let’s simplify this by replacing the term “object petit a” with a set of desirable characteristics fantasised by the lover on the beloved person. The beloved one is here reduced into the specific part of themselves described by these idealised attributes, which for the moment we will call “good”, a part that is consequently mutilated from the whole of that person. The lover falls in love with the “good” in the beloved one and as such, “good” is what defines “love”, the “good love” [I use quotation marks to signify the idealised definitions the words receive]. In short, the fantasy of the lover chops some part of the other person, and with that part they form the whole image of the beloved.

But what happens to the part that remains outside the mutilated one? It obviously cannot be really separated; it can only be aborted in the ideal scenario where the prementioned mutilation takes place, the scenario that is called fantasy. The other part, therefore, accompanies the idealised “good” part as a shadow that every now and then makes its presence as a surprise, quite often being in the form of “bad” that brings problems within the relationship. But since the “good” had already formed some person, our beloved person, then the “bad” is perceived as another personage that the lover is unable to recognise in the beloved one and thus can only make sense as something off-character.

Hence, the beloved person is split into a double personality whereby the personality of the “good” and loveable traits is separated from the personality of the “bad” and unwanted traits. In other words, the “bad” traits are encountered as a distinct person that the lover believes they can get rid of, as if they are dealing with two persons and all they have to do is expel the one they don’t like. Even further, the lover cannot accept that the other person carries both “good” and “bad”, that is to say they are mistaken about their choice of the beloved one, because admitting the “bad” in the other means that they are at the same time admitting the “bad” or “fault” within themselves, i.e. that they picked the wrong person to love. Or, by extension, that this bad choice of them is made by a bad self whom they cannot identify with, which is the encounter with their own double personality or split-character: the good one as I would like to be seen and the bad one that must remain hidden from sight. The other person, thus, functions as a mirror in which the subject attempts to see themselves the way they want to be seen, which means that the idealisation and the ideal version of themselves is formed according to someone else’s gaze (a wish to be seen by whom?): the gaze of the Other. The ideal has never been their own and the resulted split is another name for the division of the subject.

But in the final analysis, the failure happens not because the hidden or repressed part makes its presence, i.e. the return of the repressed, but precisely because of the very idealisation of the attributes that causes the production of the repressed part: The “good” of the ideal attributes has been forcefully projected from the lover to the beloved right from the beginning by naming them as such and such, so the problem is not the “bad”, but the definition of “good” which consequently leaves a hidden part outside the visual field, the part that is then nominated as bad. The idealisation in the gaze of the Other makes the experience of one’s true desire, i.e. what doesn't fall into that gaze, as an encounter with something bad. After all, it is in the “bad” of the other that usually appears the realisation that this person is not for me, and perhaps that the relationship is built on idealised standards, or even further with analysis that this person does not support my desire. And if I only see “bad” in the unveiled side of the beloved, then it means that I cannot support their desire either, i.e. the part which is beyond my fantasy. At that point, a choice has to be made whether one opts for the “good” as defined by the ideal / Other with all its consequences, over being guided by their desire. Not an easy choice, because their desire only exists in what was previously characterized as aborted or unwanted part of the loveable in the ideal.

It is thus very common that people choose to turn away from their desire, preserving it in the field of the “bad”, and instead, continue staring deeper into the “good” of their beloved one which holds the ideal image of themselves. Let’s repeat that in these terms, a false definition of “love” is given, becoming synonymous to the idealised “good”. Thus, in the function of the other person as one’s mirror, 'I love the good in the other because I want to see myself / to be seen as good', which is equal to 'I love in the way I assume myself seen as loveable'. Needless to say, the “good” speaks only of a good defined by the ideal, the good of the Other and not any good for the subject. Love” too!... within the definition is receives. The ideal binds and blinds the subject into the idealised false love in the service of the Others gaze (the demand to be seen in a certain way) and allows no space of desire and creation away from that. In fact, the terms “good” and “bad” here appear inverted as far as how they support the desire of the subject. The subject receives their own message back from the Other in an inverted form, Lacan says.

An analysand the other day was describing the major problems of his relationship, but then saying that he doesn’t want to break up because in his relationship there is much love. One obviously wonders how there can exist so serious problems in a relationship if the two persons love each other so much. Responding to the question about what he means when he says “love”, he states: “Love is to support each other; it is to feel each other’s pain”. This person’s true relationship was not with the other person as such, but with pain, becoming an irreducible condition for him to love the other and for himself to be loved, in such a way that in order to support this kind of love they had to inflict pain to each another so that they love each other by feeling each other’s pain. Pain thus here appears in the place of “good”, the idealised love, whereby “I love in you something more than you”. This analysand wasn’t led into analysis because of any sort of suffering brought by this fantasy, but because his partner started denying her place of pain, which for the analysand was the encounter with the part where his fantasy fails.

Would all the above mean that there should be no disagreements in a relationship? This is not true, unless one concludes into another sort of idealisation, that of the ideal relationship. On the contrary, what is highlighted is that disagreements unveil something of the way each partner’s fantasy functions. One can learn so many things about themselves through their own reflection encountered in the beloved one. So, the true question here is: does this relationship only support each other’s ideal image or is there a space of true desire, which means true love beyond the idealised one, i.e. the ideal that forces one to be seen in a certain way in order to be loved? And once you find out, what do you do about it?


[More about the function of the mirror in my upcoming publication on Lacan's concept of the Mirror Stage]

30 January 2021

Rebirth

Read Krister Sundelin's answer to Quantum field theory is our best effort at describing reality. But it cannot be right even though it’s passed many tests. If dark energy and dark matter are real, QFT is not even close. So what is reality? on Quora


Just take a moment and go through Krister Sundelin's interesting answer that covers not only the Quantum Field Theory, but also every model of our world, responding to the question that finally sums up into "What is reality?" . But there is another question arising here: Would the initial query be valid if not comparing reality to a specific model, according to which our experience fails? Yet would one be able to operate in the world without such a model?

Krister very nicely explains why such a model is necessary in terms of useful and good enough. Nevertheless, he implicitly notes how such a model would bring trouble if instead of identifying its scope, one treats it as identical to reality itself.

Of course, our interest here expands beyond the definition given by science, and into the way this basic question concerning life comes from the human subject who invents science in order to find an answer. 

As such, we can say that one's struggle in life is when failing to operate in the way Krister describes, i.e. instead of treating the constructed models as a useful tool of assisting the exploration of the world, the speaking being becomes servant of the very models they made. We construct models of the world navigated by the real of our experience, but then another thing happens: we abuse a model to make hard predictions, treating it as final theory of everything, where the living experience is limited into a pre-constructed framework - this is what in psychoanalysis we call (unconscious) fantasy.

One's task, and the task of psychoanalysis, wouldn’t be to navigate the subject into the construction of a convenient world, because there is no final word/world, but to liberate the process of construction itself which is a constant rebirth: one's body - another name for the place of being - is reformed along with the world. It is magnificent how children are continuously fascinated by “same things” exploring them endlessly, treating them as “new” every time. We grow old precisely when we start considering these things “same old things” i.e. we get old along with them, where we encounter less and less things to be excited about. This is how science should operate and that's why children are the best scientists!

Human desire is about exploration of the world/life that aims at an actual creation/re-creation of it, along with one's place within it, one's own body. It is definitely something that goes beyond what has already been described as fantasy and that's why people who act on their desire never get bored of what they do: they experience this constant rebirth where everything is new.

Happy re-birthday everyone.

01 January 2021

Annual Review


If you want to conduct your year-end review, ask yourself the question that Lacan asks in his seminar called
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis: “Have you acted in conformity to your desire?”

You maybe respond, “I wanted to, but lockdown restricted me from doing the thing I like”. Well, desire is not only about doing something that I like, that is to say, narrowing it into a specific object of my preferences. What is mostly about, is the inspiration and the will to make-happen. Desire is about creation.

 

Think about a child that wants to play but doesn’t have a playstation, or a racing track toy, or a plain doll. The child that wants to play will find a thousand ways and more to construct those things. The child will pick up a used tin can, a broken branch, a piece of string and play the whole day, wherever s/he may be - and if not, if the child denies to play unless s/he gets a specific toy, then we should consider that there is something wrong with this child.

 

Desire is about making our best out of our current situation. Some people talk about acceptance in a passive and pessimistic way; in a way that “if I accept what’s happening, then I accept that I am a slave”. This forms a necessity, where the only way available is resisting or remaining idle in that situation - which is, too, a resistance because staying idle doesn’t take place without force on one’s body, a force that make the body tired, thus the usual “I do nothing but I am continuously tired”. Acceptance is about considering the current situation as is, and doing what can be done accordingly. If a child is grounded from leaving their bedroom, locked down, and maybe after resisting, would it abandon his game, or would s/he invent one?

 

Don’t place your desire into a specific demand of doing this or that. Desire is the source of creation (another word for life): this is precisely what one shouldn’t lock down.