> Some form exists only in the mind that perceives it, while other form emerges
organically and exists in and of itself.
The form that exists only in the mind that perceives it is, for Lacan, the Imaginary - our unique and ultimately private fantasy life.
When you say, "while other form emerges organically" - you mean in 'nature' right? and not in the mind? This "stuff" is Lacan's Real (what one might typically call nature). The Real is nothing *prior* to consciousness, prior to being "named." The process of naming this "stuff" (the Real) is Lacan's Symbolic. So we symbolize "reality" by imposing it on the Real. This is a fragmentary task, so the Imaginary makes up the difference.
> So, right now we may think we're looking at words on the computer screen, but
the eye sees only sees pixels of light. The "words" are in our minds. Someone
might say that if all the atoms in my computer were replaced with other atoms,
it would still be the same computer, and it would be except that it's not a
computer to begin with. "Computer" is in our minds.
Yes, "computer" is a symbolized form, "in our minds" but it is sustained by the imaginary because "computer" without signifiers before, after and around it doesn't make sense without reference to other signifiers. We know what a computer is because it isn't a dog, or a lamp. This matrix of signifiers doesn't necessary give us knowledge of the Real, only fragments. Again, the missing links are filled in by the Imaginary, to "close the gap" and generate a kind of sustained consistency - a kind of "fantasy-screen."
> But what about form which is not imposed onto matter but which arises
organically "from within"?
With the above ideas, the "organic" "from within" is Real, subject to the same fragmentation.
> In this case the form is in the thing and not merely in the mind of the
perceiver. This is what it means to be yourself. A computer is not itself.
But for us, form is real and actively maintains itself in the matter that
comprises our bodies. Living form is not abstract. This applies to the mind,
i.e. the form of the neuronal connections in the brain. So the mind is not
abstract. It just creates abstractions. Grammar is the form inherent to the
prefrontal lobe. The content of language is abstract, but the grammar that
underlies it is as concrete and self-existent as any living form.
Lacan would argue that the grammar is imposed, not not "self-existent" - in other words, socially constructed. Even if (and I likely agree with you here but will phrase it differently) grammar is "hard-wired" this hardwiring is without content - and stands to be filled in by the Other (we learn words, we do not produce language ourselves, in a sense).
> Grammar is not the only thing we all share in common. We have the same array
of emotions and archetypal fantasies and facial expressions.
I suspect I might disagree with you here. If these things are present, they are Real - and only receive meaning and consistency through the alientation they experience in the imposition of the Symbolic on the Real, which is then given "life" by the Imaginary. I'd be less inclined to name these emotions and fantasies - noting that even if this is the case - they are still *mediated* by the social realm.
> Desire wants what it is lacking? You mean desire desires? Why would desire
bother desiring when it's already desire?
The desire of desire is the reproduction of desire. "It" desires to reproduce itself. Desire is part of the symbolic register (in Lacan). One desires something because something is lacking. The desire of desire is its reproduction... so the Imaginary steps in and provides a fantasy-object. This fantasy object, the object cause of desire (objet petit a) is an impossible object (the Thing, Das Ding). So one desires Das Ding, but the desire of desire will make sure, in conjunction with the Imaginary, that you never get it (if you get what you want, you no longer desire it, and desire dies).
So Lacan's registers break down like this:
Imaginary - demand (I demand the Thing) (I demand to be recognized) (ego) Symbolic - desire (I desire cake) (I desire you) (superego) Real - need (id)
So one desires cake, for example, but the Imaginary sets up an impossible delicious cake, one that any ordinary cake will fall short of. So desire, in line with the superego, says, "that's a crappy cake" and you feel a bit cheated (in ethics, you feel guilty).
> You also say that the cogito is the "subject of the unconscious." So the
subject is not the conscious thinker. We are not where we think but deeper, in
the symbolic. But we're forced into the illusion of identifying with our
conscious thought.
> Am I getting warmer?
Pretty close. For Lacan, the subject is Real - and this manifests itself as a split, between the Symbolic and Imaginary on the one hand, and the Real on the other. Subjectivity is nothing other than this very splitting.
I detect some Hegel in your post, and a bit of Jung (archetypes). If you're hanging on to Jung, we'll likely run into some problems. If you're with Hegel, then we have a tremendous degree of common ground.
ken