On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:23:09 +1000 Rob Schaap <rws at comedu.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> No, Ken, I did not fall in love because of some fatal flaw I could hold over
The point I'd like to make is this: we sustain our relationships on an image of perfection, not the reality of this perfection. We 'need' the sustain the split. The idea of G. Bush as divine would render his presence intolerable... his popularity is a result of his flawed character...
In love, we relate to something in the beloved object than what they are, something that remains unaccounted for in love.... something that prevents the relation from being 'complete.'
Take something, for example, that you like to eat, no, I mean LOVE to eat. Why don't you eat it everyday? Because that would ruin it for our desire. We sustain our desire for the beloved object by keeping it at a distance, by render it 'imperfect' in our eyes... by putting it in a fantasy-frame that facilitates our ongoing desire... not its satisfaction. This 'remainder' is the objet petit a, the object cause of desire... which is - literally, the object of the drive.
Maybe the idea of "holding over" wasn't the best expression. But I think it still stands. If a beloved is perfect... then it would be difficult (impossible?) to love them, precisely because they would be 'complete' without us... without a rejoinder... we love because there is a rejoinder, because the relation continues to be written.