following on from the discussion of yesterday I have created a ‘fill in the missing Lacanian discourses‘ game. This is partially humorously intended and partially serious. Serious insofar as some of the discussion raises precisely the issue that, as the schema has been created, it necessitates the existence of the other positions -which presumably given sufficient understanding of the relations between the positions could be seen to mean things (discourses?).
As I have not been able to find any definitive guide to what the relations between the positions are, this hampers interpretation somewhat.This issue was brought to particular light in the Olivier discussion in which the postulated notion that lower symbols are unconscious was brought into doubt. The reason being that if Olivier is right then pseudo hysterical capitalist if ruled by a hidden but not unconscious master signifier, whereas in a conventional understanding of the master’s discourse the divided subject seems reasonably unconscious to the agency of the master signifier.
In further discussion S1 over S2 towards $ over a was postulated as an alternative capitalist discourse -rather than the pseudo hysterical one. Here the master signifier hides knowledge in the position of truth. The subject has become the other (to itself even) and the production is of the petit a- it made sense at the time.
This kind of deliberately allowing ourselves to dwell within the framework led to the further question of ‘what about the other discourses?’ So feel free to treat the game purely as humour, but equally if anyone has any insights into the meaning of the relations or what potentially the other configurations might mean, please feel free to share.
With best wishes