“by acknowledging her symptom,..by letting [him] appropriate its libidinal value, she is..released from..her narcissism.” – fabio vighi
“[some hysterics] over-identification with the repressed underside of the Symbolic, which undermines the [Symbolic] from within.” – fabio vighi
“Ester’s journey of self-destruction..is simultaneously a happy event. The scene of the two sisters’ hateful confrontation, after Anna’s copulation with the bartender,..Ester comes face to face with what is in her more than herself, the disgusting stuff of enjoyment that she is not able to assume as her own. Ester..witnesses a scene of sex in the theatre which clearly disturbs her, and then, instead of recoiling, embarks blindly, like an automaton, on a search for something that might tame her libido. ..Anna’s silent endorsement of her libido is what profoundly perturbs and at the same time magnetically attracts Ester, who in fact cannot keep from eavesdropping and eventually breaking in on Anna and her lover.” – fabio vighi on Ingmar Bergman’s The Silence
man is locked in compulsive
sustained by the …
(fantasised-about) objet a.
never reaches the Other;
woman, on the contrary,
can enjoy the Other.
Instead of pretending
to have the phallus,
woman is the phallus:
she vindicates the negativity
[which is in the case of men]
contained in the phallus
qua signifier of lack.
FABIO VIGHI [on woman being more phallus than man through not being contained by the association of the phallic with having to be complete. Having to be complete as a masculine prerogative, makes men actually all the more incomplete, as their idea of phallus springs from the fear to not have the phallus enough. Woman, on the other hand, does not come up with this fear of lacking the phallus, thus, being free of having to have the phallus, she is the phallus, according to Lacan]
Woman has a chance to disengage
from the masculine urge to symbolise.
[Woman can] “enjoy” the inconsistency
of the symbolic field – the fact that
the big Other does not exist.
fabio vighi [on realising that the imagined witness of our actions does not exist: the “eye from above”, the (big) Other, whom we needed to imagine ourselves as integrated into a symbolic, meaningful universe of consistency.]