d-m-c quotes Lacan (or Butler on Lacan? I don't have _PLOP_):
> "Opacity...opaque. The ability of a mirror to reflect is
> conditioned by its opacity. It is a pane(pain) of glass, like a
> window; but unlike a window, it is neither transparent nor
> translucent. Opacity requires the impenetrability of light. In
> order to see oneself in a mirror of one's own making, in order to be
> self-reflective, there is a fundamental opacity at the very core of
> one's being. It is an opacity that cannot be penetrated if one is
> ever to become self-reflective, to take oneself as an object of
> reflection, of thought, of consideration. This is source of both
> the agony and joy of the human condition....
But does the doctrine of the subject really give rise to this problem?
Any specific *instance* of reflection will be blind to something, but
does a conception of subjectivity as an *ongoing process* and a
process mediated by other subjects (the starting point of the
Master/Slave dialectic) fall prey to this criticism? I don't think it
does.
If the conception of subjectivity provided above doesn't give rise to
the problems in the passage quoted, is this the same as claiming you
can have an epistemology without an ontology (a previous question of
d-m-c's in a post I can't find now)? Maybe -- but the question seems
to assume that ontology has to be prior to any other type of thought,
that I have to account for capital-B Being before accounting for any
particular small-b beings. And I think that amounts to stacking the
desk against any knowledge or activity in particular, for as soon as
the priority of capital-B Being is conceded, the significance (or
insignificance) of any small-b beings -- such as the emergence of
dissident knowledge and activity -- fall prey to the charge of
ontological insufficiency. That which doesn't fall into line is
inauthentic, indefensible, uninformed, doomed to failure. For,
statements like
> the self bars the path to wholeness, unity, and reconciliation by
> deflecting desire, misrepresenting itself, misrecognizing what it
> truly desires
aren't based on any analysis of subjectivity, but on posits about what
a subject has to be prior to any actual instances.
And I think that these are not only hopeless doctrines, they're
incorrect.
The doctrine of the priority of ontology "forgets that circumstances
are changed by men and that it is essential to educate
the educator himself." And this means that theories of being and
knowledge aren't things we need have recourse to to justify our acts
and thoughts, but that they are things we *do* when we act and when we
think. Does the self present difficulties for our realizing
wholeness, unity, and reconciliation? Sure, but it's also what
enables us to experience what fleeting moments of fulfillment we find.
It's also the only means we have us pursuing fulfillment.
Final quip, and perhaps a cheap shot, but I have to say it: not all
mirrors are totally opaque. So-called pellicle mirrors, used in
motion picture cameras, both transmit and reflect light. If we must
have a metaphor for subjectivity, I prefer this one, with its strange
and fascinating possibilities.
--
Curtiss