The pre-reflective immediacy that reflection seems to lose is an après-coup illusion: it is produced by the failure, not lost to it — so the split is ontological, not epistemological.

The pre-reflective immediacy that reflection seems to lose is an après-coup illusion: it is produced by the failure, not lost to it — so the split is ontological, not epistemological.

• Lacan re-describes this split as enunciation vs. utterance and as the "fading" of the subject in the signifier.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  How to return to subjectivity? Natorp, Husserl, and Lacan on the limits of reflection — Lacan: The Split Subject and the Ontologization of the Gap

  academic framework

  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315611263
• The "lost immediacy" is placed both before and after the act of reflection.
• So it is the product of fading, not its origin.
• The impediment generates what it impedes.

These are challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must still withstand. Answering them on Isonomia strengthens the argument.

• Could another cause explain the effect?Open
• Is this merely correlation (post hoc)?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests