#symbolization

03/02/2022

Semiosis and Osmosis

In an ecological context, semiosis happens at the level of the Greimasian semiotic square. This is prior to any perception or understanding of communication in general, let alone between organisms. Life-forms can communicate with their environment and with one another, without any necessity or need for “understanding” the very concept of communication itself. What matters at this level is therefore whatever “works”, whatever performs its function at the material level in order for matter to get predisposed towards organ-ization.

For this kind of natural occurrence of semiosis, it doesn't matter much where the given terms are placed on the Greimasian “semiotic square” (pictured above), since any four terms, in an authentically “semiotic” relation to one another, will both imply and contradict one another simultaneously as structured signs, so long as their corresponding term is “contrary” because it is something different.

Additionally, the comparison between two signs (S1 → S2 and ~S1 → ~S2) is a “structuration” between their respective terms. This organic set of relations is not merely linguistic or even conceptual, but purely metaphysical, chemical, and scientific. In other words, the contrast between any authentically different things in the world is what creates their mutual, logical understandability. The universe can show any side of the understanding(s) involved in the process of osmosis, for instance, that resolves the tensions intrinsic to the heterogeneity of matter, a heterogeneity which the universe actually contains as existent within itself, and the relation of S to ~S is still the same as ~S to S. (Since they genuinely pertain to the nature of existence, furthermore, this semiotic relation between signs may also be called “existential”.) All this belongs to the order of what is properly called “metaphysical”.

Signification within Organ-ization as “Counter-Metaphysical”

Signification, on the other hand, may be considered “counter-metaphysical”. This is because the sign, denoted in the semiotic square as either S or ~S, is no longer equivalent to itself (within signification) as both value and other-value, as both object and other-object, terms interacting in an existential way that is totally neutral, wherein what is “understood” is purely indicative of what is simply and naturally there.

Rather, within signification, the understanding corresponds to an established organ-ization of matter wherein signals must be understood in a way that is economical, in a way that is phenomenological, towards a greater, organic unity of the posited whole. This “whole” is fundamentally illusory, but as such it “organ-izes” material communication into the categories of transmissions and exchanges.

Such organ-ized transmissions are “functional”, because they respond to a signal reflexively, and negate the understanding (on behalf of an organic “whole”) of a reason for transmitting or dispatching. And in turn, organ-ized exchanges are “purposive”, because they respond to a signal reflexively, and negate the understanding (on behalf of an organic “whole”) of a perception of exchanging, or the perception of being solicited, by a transmitted signal.

The “Signal of a Signal”? The Sign in Linguistics and Signification

Hence, in Saussurean linguistics (as I understand it), a “sign” is split in two by signification, into signifier and signified:

This kind of “sign” has lost both its natural and its metaphysical ambivalence. It is no longer the behavior of matter “understanding” the presence of other matter by a signalling reaction, but a signal signalling itself as such. The interactions between signals which can signal themselves qua signal to one another is the physical elaboration (within reality) necessary for the initialization of an organization towards the structuration (S and ~S) of any “organ-ism”.

In contrast to the vertical lines on either side of the semiotic square, which are both pointing upwards from the lower level to indicate “implication” (found in semiosis), in signification, the direction of the vertical line on the right side of the semiotic square has been reversed, now pointing from S2 to ~S1. Another way of putting it is that the semiotic square has been rotated 90 degrees clockwise, and the two terms on the bottom level have been inverted, or switched around. Furthermore, the difference between S1 and S2 has been neutralized into the signified, and correspondingly, the difference between ~S2 and ~S1 has been neutralized into the signifier.

Thus, S2 now points to ~S1 in a reversal of semiotic “implication” that makes natural semiosis no longer applicable to both signs (S and ~S) on the semiotic square. Rather, in signification, ~S now depends on S for its very substance as a potential sign that can signal itself to other signs, other signs that are also capable of signaling themselves in their capacity as signs, and now also in the form of signifiers.

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, this (Saussurean) structure of signification is denoted thus:

uppercase “S” over lowercase “s”, or signifier (in French, signifiant) over signified (in French, signifié). This reversal of the position of one term to the other from Saussure’s drawing (the ellipse divided in two resembling the semiotic square) into Lacan’s denotation, S over s, ratifies how the arrow of “implication” from ~S1 to S2 is reversed, because the signified must now be assimilated to the signifier in order to give the signifier the primacy it is due within the domain of signification proper.

In other words, if an arrow pointing up from the signifier to the signified is only one half of the semiotic square, it is because the signified, in addition to its respective meaning, must also have its originating signifier as its referent in order to be authentically signified. This “signified” therefore also corresponds to the structure of an object, because it is convertible, and figuratively speaking, “two-sided”.

The Origin of (so-called) “Evil”

It is no coincidence how this operation resembles some metaphysical or anti-natural structure of “evil”, since it forcefully abbreviates the moral world of matter, whether organic or inorganic, into a world of words which must submit to the developments of language and the rules of proper grammar. The intrinsic morality which belongs to metaphysical concepts in the natural world is thereby betrayed, turned upside-down, and becomes confusing (literally, “fused-together”) to all beings who must submit to the limits of communication through language.

This is because signification functions by implementing a seemingly backwards system of thought, based on trivial things such as “belief” and “expression”, in place of a system of communication based on simple transmissions and exchanges of matter, both organic and inorganic, between living organisms.

The Origin of Structure, and of Truth: Signification as Semiosis within Symbolization

A symbolization, according to Lacan's interpretation of Roman Jakobson in his fifth seminar Formations of the Unconscious, must have four terms. Since this relates to the Oedipal triangle later in the seminar, one might say of a symbolization: “you have to have four to have three”.

Does this mean of such a seemingly primal symbolization, as it relates to signification, that the three terms of the Oedipus complex (father, mother, child) are really four terms, somehow fused together into three by the apparently perverting mechanisms of signification itself?

One known symbolization, as it appears on the L-schema (pictured above), and which illustrates that “the unconscious [inconscient] is the discourse of the Other [Autre]”, is devoid of the vertical lines of the semiotic square which indicate “implication”.

Rather, the two signs, S → a’ (S) and A → a (~S), relate to one another via the imaginary relation between a’ and a, or the objet petit “a” and the ego (moi). This obstructs the unconscious relation between the Other (A) and the signifier (S) from being directly produced as language that is fully arbitrary (from one's own imagination), and illustrates how the signifier is actually imposed from without, where the Other is not, where it does not speak.

This is the symbolization which structures the emergence of signifiers, but only merely “structur-ates” signification in general.

The relation between S and a’ is thereby established in the form of a philosophical skepticism, in Immanuel Kant’s usage of the term. The Kantian “thing-in-itself” in this case, however, which is not what is signified by the signifier, but rather what escapes all nomination, is not the object of skepticism. The true object of this skepticism is the relation of the id (S) [in German, das Es] to the object a (a’) [in French, objet petit a], but which is a relation without substantiation if the signifier is not first discovered in “the cry”.

This does not mean, as skeptical, that it is a relation subjected to doubt, or somehow cast in a light of suspicion. Rather, it means that the structure of belief (in signification) originates from a previously established success at this form of communication and obtaining some form of satisfaction. This kind of success pertains to the respective dialectics of need and demand, and enter into a mammalian register of consideration when it comes to the organic subsistence of the terrified human child, who must rely on the untrustworthy mechanisms of love and pitifulness in order to found a solid faith and reason in its own existence.

It is with a view to this understanding of signification that I propose my own theory of the two symbolizations which bear upon the political and psychological problematic of sexual orientation: castration–frustration and castration–privation. These two symbolizations are relations between the “moments” of the Oedipus complex, of which there are three: castration, frustration, and privation.

However, the connection between the imaginary object and the real father within the moment of castration, analogous to the connection between S and a’ in the L-schema, is not a “skeptical” connection. Rather, it is a properly logical connection, one which governs rational, visual understandings of reality, and retroactively organ-izes experiences of pleasure in relation to the scopic drive. (Additionally, the vertical arrows, which were once the support of the semiotic square discussed above, are still null and void for symbolization, even at the scopic level. You can mostly disregard the solid black arrows in the symbolizations illustrated below, but it is obvious why they were needed in the first place.)

Castration–Frustration:

Castration–Privation:

This is why the line pointing from imaginary object to real father is not dashed, but solid. Additionally, the scopic drive is a drive that can treat the symbolization(s) as more versatile arrangements between terms, and attain to a truly scientific form of cognition capable of repudiating the dominance of the signifier over abstract concepts belonging to the understanding.

Just these two symbolizations, however, are not enough to de-tangle the ambiguity of a “moment”, wherein or whereby objects are disjunctively joined from the left column to their respective agents on the right column (of the symbolization). The moments which occur to the understanding in relation to castration, whether frustration or privation, must point to either term of castration (imaginary object or real father) from “outside” the symbolized configuration, while also becoming part of it, as the “other side” of castration. Real father and symbolic mother never truly “understand” one another, and neither do real father and imaginary father. There is no possibility of a semiotic “implication” within a symbolization, no equivalency between objects, nor between agents. What works instead, in the pursuit of scientific and philosophical truth, is how these two symbolizations may “subvert” one another.

I will focus on the place of language in sublimation, to show that it is through language that sublimation is intrinsically and inevitably cultural, in the sense that it is a bearer of creativity, which is precisely what distinguishes it from repression and idealization. I say, through language, and by this I mean language not as an object of such and such branch of modern or traditional linguistics, but as a semiotic practice open to the heterogeneity of drives: an enunciation, if you like, thanks to which the alchemy of pleasure transforms into jouissance, and the symbolic bond into creativity…..this blossoming of semiotic creativity among the speaking beings –

Technical Considerations of Iconicity

Oedipal Moments versus (Anti-Oedipal) Identificational Memories: Symbolization of Semiosis, Re-Semiotized

03/04/2022

The castrational symbolizations of the Oedipus complex all find the real father as their "dead end" in the temporal realization of an authentic "moment". Therefore, in order for the anti-Oedipal agents to have a semiotic relation to one another, the term real father must always be situated at ~S2. This amounts to the fact that the lessons about visual logic found in the Oedipus complex indicate the production of the Other at the level of perception.

To "undo" the crystallizations of the scopic drive at the level of perception, however, the anti-Oedipal agents must intervene towards identification (with the father) and, by extension, the dissolution of the Oedipus complex, in order to instantiate the role of memory in relation to the already-introjected melancholic object.

The melancholic object is the convergence of the image of the imaginary phallus i(a) with the ego m, which precipitates the "ego-ideal" (on the Schema L, a) that is linked to the production of the maternal superego at the point on the

"m-i-M-E" trapezium marked "Child", or E (Enfant). This is what constitutes for the child a faculty of "self-regard", or self-awareness, as it corresponds to a view of the mother's scrutiny (here she is both imaginary and symbolic).

The link to any identification with the (symbolic) father P (Père) is going to begin with the real father at ~S2, which starts by an "objective" implication of another existent agent S1, and results in both a product ~S1 and an authentic other ~S2 of the real father.

General Formula for anti-Oedipal Semioses:

real father (~S2): ~S1 <––> S2 –> S1

Semioses of Iconic Principles

Quantity principle:

real father: imaginary mother <––> symbolic father –> real mother

Proximity principle:

real father: real mother <––> imaginary mother –> symbolic father

Sequential order principle:

real father: symbolic father <––> real mother –> imaginary mother

The "result" of the interactions between agents for each principle is in boldface at S1, and at the top-left corner of each semiotic square, and he or she is the agent, or “operator”, of the semiotic square in relation to the mechanism of "inversion" (i.e., temporal alignment) which belongs to symbolization. The agent at S1 is the one who is "to blame" for the metaphysical operations found in semiosis, the operations of the signified found in symbolization, and the signifying operations found in the schema L (the unconscious is the discourse of the Other).

Hence, the three "moments", or better, "memories", of identification with the father and the dissolution of the Oedipus complex are quantity, proximity, and sequential order, or ordered sequence. The moments of the Oedipus complex itself, however, were castration, frustration, and privation. It was also discovered, upon closer examination, that castration was the moment that linked the other two moments together within a visual relationship to reality called the "scopic drive", and this form of linkage is what I decided to call "castrational".

For these elements of identification which I am deciding to call "memories", the memory which most closely resembles the Oedipal moment of castration is either quantity or sequential order/ordered sequence, but it is also definitely not proximity. Unfortunately, the paradigm of castration that was previously so helpful for rejuvenating the Oedipus complex for contemporary understanding is no longer helpful for this triad of elements of identification. In any case, the movement from a semiotic square to a symbolization involves a transition that has one of these identificational elements as its fundamental referent, a referent capable of functioning as a pivoting point for one of the corners of the semiotic square.

The Two Pivots of the Three Rotational Transformations for Identificational Semioses:

Proximity

From S1: 90-degrees counterclockwise, for the semiosis of proximity (symbolic father to real mother).

Hence, there is revolution (in discourse), and four transformations will obtain the result of being the same arrangement (on the square) you began with.

Also, if the pivoting point of the rotation were the center of the square (instead of S1), the respective absolute value of the four terms on the square that appeared at any position on it for each of the rotations will add up to the same sum. The other three corners are also identical in this way, thus each possesses the same property. Revolution and identity thus bear a relation to one another that is fundamentally controversial and unequal.

Sequential Order/Ordered Sequence

From ~S2: 180-degrees counterclockwise, for the semiosis of sequential order/ordered sequence (imaginary mother to symbolic father).

From ~S2: 180-degrees clockwise, for the semiosis of sequential order/ordered sequence (imaginary mother to symbolic father).

Hence, there is counting, and there is memorization, two operations which obtain the same result, or sum.

The Transformations to get Schema L:

Rotate the graphic for a symbolization counterclockwise 90-degrees. Then the square becomes re-semiotized via identification.

On the Symbolization of the Semiosis of the Quantity Principle of Iconicity:

This symbolization can be re-semiotized legitimately; it is the only one capable of doing so, due to the ontic nature of reality, and the point of departure for this finite moment of identification is that of the real mother. As an identificational memory, it is the ratification and consolidation of sense with perception. The subsequently emerged gap between that of the real father of the Oedipus complex and the real mother of identification is then the space of the icon.

"Mechanical" explanation: The imaginary mother pushes against the outer margins of the real mother, conditioning her logical possibility; however, her outer margin is self-de-territorializing, totally susceptible to the affects of the imaginary mother which are responsible for the Kantian causa noumena. In addition to this, the symbolic father traverses the gap of the space occupied by the icon, and it pushes against while also fusing with the outer margins of the real father. Taken separately as such, the dimension of "the real" is therefore a double articulation, precisely because the inward pressing forces of the symbolic father and the imaginary mother of anti-Oedipal identification are met with an expression of ontic resistance to the real, a resistance which emanates outward from, just as it inheres to, the real father, which is also a site of absolute attraction.

Just as interactions between entities of matter are like the "thoughts" of the universe because they abide by the logical principles of physics, so are the metaphysical laws of semiosis bound to ontological principles by which they abide, namely, the double articulation found in the geology of morals. The inward pressing force of the imaginary mother comes from infinitely far-away, yet does not make material contact with the physical substance of the real mother, even though it may affect her form. Taking off towards the within from a physical piece of the real mother's substance, however, is the momentum of the symbolic father which traverses any gap which may house the icon, and makes contact with the outer margins of the ontic core called "real father", a timeless agency of the present-moment which continuously threatens to negate itself if it cannot possibly negate the symbolic father's metaphysical "touch". This dynamic is what provides a mapping of the gap which may foster the icon, but leaves the very space of iconicity itself alone to its relative quantum mystery.

The quality of occupying the empty space propped open by this gap, then, which is this area mapped by the double articulation, is called iconicity. This empty space surrounding the margins of real objects is that which has the metaphysical properties of the principles of iconicity.

The Real is ‘that which resists symbolization absolutely' 

Through yesterday’s rainbow we learned how to dream and count our blessings through the stars. The moon represented the mysterious of stories and legends untold where philosophies foreseen and ideas forged became mile markers for the stars while somewhere a rainbow gifted hope and the promise of another tomorrow.

The symbolization, or meaning, is perhaps an important aspect of our existence where we can ask “who am I?” Symbolizations of God’s love have many appearances and light up the heart where within we can grow and maintain a new stature where all there exists is love and happiness.

The empty remarks and the proverbial questions fester within like open wounds that have been scratched where the promises of tomorrow burn and rage through our weathered feelings that exist apart from the warmth that is provided through open arms and a smile.