"With the logic of Real-as-impossible you have this notion of the unattainable object - the logic of desire, where desire is structured around a primordial void. I would argue that the notion of drive that is present here cannot be read in these transcendentalist terms: that is to say, in terms of an a priori loss where empirical objects never coincide with das Ding, the Thing. The vulgar example that I would give here is the following. Let us say you are in love with a woman and that you are obsessed with her vagina. You do all the possible things : you penetrate it, kiss it, whatever - it's your problem; I won't go into that. Now, from a transcendentalist perspective the idea is that this is a typical illusion: you think the vagina is the Thing itself, but really it's not, and you should accept the gap between the void of the Thing and the contingent object filling it up. But when you are in such an intense sexual love relationship, I don't think the idea can be that the vagina is just an ersatz for the impossible Thing. No, I think that it is this particular object, but that this object is strangely split. There is a self-distance - you know it is the vagina, but you get never enough - the split is within the object itself. The split is not between the empirical reality and the impossible Thing. No, it is rather that the vagina is both itself and, at the same time, something else."
Slavoj Žižek, Conversations with Žižek
dupa un asemenea discurs imi pare ca Spargatorului de nuci a lui Ceaikovski i-ar sta m bine in termeni lacanieni. Spargatorul de vagine.
ps imagine pizdita de la Alex de pe fb.
