The feminine logic is the not-all. The set is incomplete, but there is no exception to it.
The Real is the irreconcilable difference between the two logics. Here are some simplified examples for the beginner in philosophy that may help give a sense of how this works.
1. In Descartes' Meditations 1-2, the project of methodic doubt functions in a way that is homologous to the feminine logic. The subject as such is feminine, and the subject as such--the feminine subject--is the question.
However, once Descartes isolates his first principle, the cogito, 'I think therefore I am,' he starts with this (allegedly) intuitive knowledge, and begins his attempt to deduce all other kinds of knowledge from it. This project fails: for one thing, it involves a couple of fallacious 'proofs' of God's existence. The process of beginning with a first principle (the cogito) and then deducing all other kinds of knowledge from the cogito is homologous to the masculine logic. Thinking substance is the exception.
2. John Locke's philosophy involves an empiricist theory of knowledge, and a dualist theory of metaphysics. He argues that we receive simple ideas from the two kinds of substance, material substance (matter) and spiritual substance (soul). Out of these simple ideas our minds form complex ideas. Simple ideas of sensation are received into consciousness (through the sense organs) from material substance, and simple ideas of reflection are received into consciousness from the soul. However, Locke acknowledges that we have no knowledge of substance as such, even though all knowledge implies substance (matter and soul) as the origin of the two kinds of simple ideas--from which all complex ideas are formed. Locke's philosophy is homologous to the masculine logic. Substance is the exception.
Hume in a nutshell: Hume is Locke without the notion of substance. What Locke calls 'simple ideas,' Hume calls 'impressions.' What Locke calls 'complex ideas,' Hume calls 'ideas.' Hume argues that the word 'substance' is a word with no meaning, since we have no impression of substance as such. All our knowledge then, is restricted to impressions and the ideas which are faint, weak copies of impressions. Hume's thinking here is homologous to the feminine logic.
3. Kant put simply: Kant distinguishes between phenomena (things-for-us, appearances) and noumena (things-in-themselves). Knowledge is of phenomena (appearances), we have no knowledge of the thing-in-itself which lies behind or beyond the appearance. However, we must presuppose it, especially regarding moral choices, since the phenomenal self is determined, while the noumenal self is free. Kant's philosophy is homologous to the masculine logic. The thing-in-itself is the exception.
Hegel in a nutshell: Hegel is like Kant without the noumena. Appearances are all there is, even though these appearances are incomplete and/or inconsistent with one another. This is homologous to the feminine logic.
4. The relativity of motion. You are standing on a train, and you drop a coin. From your frame of reference, the coin drops approximately 27 inches in a straight-line segment from your hand towards the center of the earth. Now imagine a viewer on the station platform watching through the windows of the train as it speeds past the station at ninety miles per hour. The observer sees the coin leave your hand, and travel forward at ninety miles per hour in the time between when it leaves your hand and when it hits the floor of the train. So the coin actually moved significantly farther than 27 inches, and its path was a forward, downward-sloping curve. Now imagine an observer situated above the surface of the earth. From this frame of reference, the coin not only travels forward as it falls with the movement of the train. In addition, it also travels through space at approximately 1,000 miles per hour with the rotation of the earth. The coin then, moves significantly further than in the previous frame of reference, and the path of its motion is 'twisted' by the earth's rotation. Similarly, there are other, 'broader' frames of reference: the earth also revolves at enormous speed around the sun; the sun revolves at an even greater speed around the center of the milky way galaxy; the galaxy revolves around the center of the cluster of galaxies; the cluster revolves around the center of the supercluster, and the supercluster itself moves. The masculine logic is exemplified if we imagine that there must be some definite, 'true' distance and path of the coin's motion. This unknowable absolute distance and path of motion is the exception that is constituive of all the 'perspectival' descriptions of the coin's motion from the various frames of reference. The definite, 'true' motion is the exception.
The feminine logic in relation to this same example is simply the 'universal perspectivism' of accepting all of the descriptions of the motion from the various frames of reference, while denying the meaning of any definite, 'true' distance and path that somehow exists behind or beyond the various perspectives.
In each of the above 4 examples, the Real is nothing but the difference between the masculine logic and the feminine logic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, Kelsey, those examples certainly are simplified! But, OK, maybe the newcomer to philosophy can get some idea of logic of sexuation and Real from them. I looked through your book on Plato's Parmenides--too much nonsense about democracy and ethics of alterity (I think you now realize this). But you do successfully show the Hegelian aspect of the dialogue. And your (rather vague) notion of "odd juxtaposition" does give some sense of the Real as opposed to the imaginary-symbolic constitution of reality. But the whole celebration of 'troubling play' betrays Derrida's influence on your thinking at that time.
ReplyDeleteI discovered your blog just a couple of weeks ago and have been an avid reader ever since.
ReplyDeleteI certainly qualify as a beginner (or at least non-expert) in philosophy and I apologize if my question seems dumb. Now, here's the thing: you seem to suggest that a transition from the masculine to feminine logic is achieved by a simple removal of the constitutive exception. Is that correct, at least to the first approximation? Secondly, in your last example, I sort of understand how an absolute frame of reference (say, the pre-Einsteinian "ether" with respect to which the "true" velocities are measured) could be thought of as the constitutive exception of the system. However, I'm not sure in what sense the fully relativistic system which you designate as feminine non-All is incomplete. What exactly is the definition of completeness here? I would have thought that completeness means that every question that is well-posed within the system can be answered within the system. A Goedel-like incompleteness aside (nearly all formal systems are incomplete in that sense) I'd say the relativistic world is complete in that sense. I mean, yes, you can't say what the true path of your coin is but that's because the very question of a true path, velocity, etc is meaningless within the theory
Beautiful question! But you don't sound like a beginner to me. I haven't done philosophy of science since I first discovered Lacan and then Zizek. Since then Zizek has been my primary interst and concern. With this blog, I am just trying to show people how much sense he really makes. Too many academics still do not take him seriously enough. I hope that we who have learned from him can change that. But, regarding your question, I wonder why you would put a Goedel-like incompleteness aside? Lacan didn't put it aside. I like the term "universal perspectivism" because it captures the paradox of Zizek's notion of the universal as a negative a priori. Have you read The Parallax View yet? I think you would like it.
ReplyDeletekrzysztof, in responding to your comment I forgot to say that I think you are right that the examples do seem to imply that simply removing the exception allows the transition from the masculine to the feminine logic. That is one reason why the examples are "simplified." But I think there is an important difference. The exception is CONSTITUTIVE for the masculine logic. But the logic of non-all needs no constitutive exception.
ReplyDeleteThe phallic signifier--the master signifier--is always meaningless within the theory. That is precisely the point. In this sense, meaning is imaginary. Fantasy fills in the gaps in the symbolic system. The task for the feminine subject (the subject as such) is to traverse the fantasy. This we can do, because the subject as such is the question, not the fantasmatic, phallic answer. The subject as such is distinct from the process of subjectivization. Death drive will inevitably bring (some of) us into the point of recognizing the symbolic fiction as such. The master is an imposter--this means phallic signifier is meaningless within the very field of symbolic significance which it pins down or 'quilts'.
ReplyDeleteIf Lacan developed his formulas of sexuation from Aristotle,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.swingtradesystems.com/lacan/lacan-and-aristotle.html
does he acknowledge this anywhere? He mentions his name nowhere in Seminar 20. Does say something in earlier or later seminars? Are any of these published?