we’re used to think in 3-dimensional spaces and terms to understand ourselves and others.
desire as a phenomena also exists within a 2-dimensional space
what are the implications of thinking desire within a 2-dimensional space?
it means that there’s no clear line between ourselves, others and also the autonomous symbolic machine that language is and that we think we “use” to think or communicate with ourselves and others (although we are also constantly being used by it without our awareness).
I don’t understand what the concept of “dimension” refers to in this non-mathematical context. Could someone elaborate on that or provide sources that do? This looks intriguing. Thank you!
hi.
Lacan does an extense reading of Freud and finds that the best way to locate the psyche and its entropic energetic states is through topology of surfaces (2-D).
not 3-D, as Freud did (iceberg = ego, superego and id).
he does this because psyche and its energetic motions through Freudian obsevations (such as projection-introjection, narcissistic-objectal libido) has the same propierties that mathematically closed finite & infinite spaces do, to understand the nature of an egoic intersubjective reality in neurosis, psychosis and perversion.
Lacan does use mathematics because they operate with pure signifiers that do not create chains of signifiers (like they do in signification, meaning or sense).
numbers lack meaning by themselves, so they can be operated by stripping all attempts from the imaginary to capt them (which is something that Lacan tries to avoid, and blames Jung for falling for it).
mathematics and logic formulae are located within the Real (signifiers that do not make chains), in opposition to and out-of sense/meaning/signification in which Jungian archetypes would be located.
Thank you so much for your answer.
I didn’t expect to see mathematics here, but now I need to learn more 