u/brandygang

What is it called when an individual projects a sort of reification onto the Big Other and imagines themselves complete in it because 'it' itself is viewed as complete, as if enacting the Mirror Stage on a society scale? Basically seeking existential closure through an Ego Ideal they've internalized.

Rather than an ideal ego on the level of an individual where they'll be complete somehow ("I'll be rich and famous, I'll be happy when I'm a writer, I'll be complete when I find love"), they project it onto the Big Other as Ego Ideal that is already seen as enclosed with a social fullness or society as a closed totality. In this unnamed process, I become complete by surrendering myself to something I imagine already possesses completeness.

For instance, one imagines a political party, a nation or state as perfect (Stalin's "We Communists are people of a special mould") and the resulting utopia from it (Classless society, racialized right-wing ethnostate, Religious afterlife after antagonistic elements have been removed) being the only ethical life and complete harmonious Good.

In the case of the ethnostate, the racialized social order, the religious salvationist afterlife, the utopian ideal and so on, the fantasy is that there is a perfect form out there, that there is an Other of that form, and we must project onto it, we must build it and conform to it, we must invest it with our own desire to be rid of our own subjectivity, joining this Other to erase one's own constitutive lack as a subject..

This ridding of one's subjectivity and projection onto a big Other, what is it called? Is there a word for it Lacan has or in psychoanalysis?

I'm rewatching Hail Mary, and find beauty in the simplicity of how the nom du père is implemented in this movie. Halfway thru the movie when Grace encounters Rocky, the first thing he does is a very nonsensical dance, which Rocky immediately imitates and understands. This of course, indicates that the nom du père is present and demonstrated. But why, exactly? In a neurotic family, your nom du père is present simply because it's so ingrained in you from childhood. However, because they never grew up together, it's much less likely that they would understand each other's nom du père. It's interesting how it's not a matter of learning a fixed universal or anything (The fetish of the Clocks shared in the film for instance), they're both present but only accessible through some bizarre, idiosyncratic path. This bizarre and idiosyncratic path is, of course, the Nom du Père, which allows each to communicate with each other par excellence, precisely because it is not communication or simply shared speaking language (The Big Other), but a private language that can be shared with (o)thers. The Nom du père is inexplicable, idiosyncratic, particular, And it can only be deciphered by someone or a group of little others in the symbolic space who share it.

This implementation of the Name of the Father occurs before they even translate each other's languages, showing the Father's name is preverbal and prelinguistic even, and cannot be equated to literal language (The psychotic, neurotic and pervert speak words but they do not share their meaning or usage).

The film joins scifi among the ranks of Terminator and ET that similarly explore the relationship between a father and son, and brotherhood as a result of a shared, absent father.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who's noticed this. But what do you think about it, if you've never realized this theme in the movie?

Is there any room in psychoanalysis for someone who has made bed with accepting the non-existence of the big Other, and is no longer demanding that the Other guarantee one’s being? Along with the acceptance that the Other does not exist or cannot complete them, that their is no signifier which offers heaven or completes them. If a patient like this comes to psychoanalysis, what is the treatment prescribed to them, what does it look like? Is it lonely?

I just imagine someone like this appearing overly cynical or skeptical and in any other therapy discourse, appearing 'stubborn', 'defiant' or 'non-cooperative', (Or perhaps they are not a curmudgeon but didn't come believing analysis can bring them love or happiness) but here if an analysand already knows how it ends, to what do they seek in their unconscious? Can they even assume subject-supposed-to-know?

What are your thoughts on this?

I've been hearing about this scenario spread on social media and found it of special interest:

>Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

I find the option, to be Blue very obviously the correct choice. Why? Here's my reasoning, let me examine the problem and tweak it abit. The 'Private vote' part implies every vote is anonymous and no one know what or when others are voting for, and the result won't take effect until after the vote concludes. What if we rearrange this so that the vote is linear (See: Squid games). And the effect (execution) happens immediately after.

Logically, if anyone was reasonable the choice would be simple. IF everyone votes red than everyone survives, but if 100% of voters choose blue no one dies either. Both 'all red/blue' present good options! Trust is required for this, but all it means is after the 1st vote is cast, the 2nd person would repeat the first's decision to make sure the vote is consistent. Vote Red, everyone after votes red. Vote blue, everyone 2nd and after votes blue. Everyone votes the same all the way thru. Simple! (If you don't understand this logic, research the Monty Hall Problem or The three prisoners)

Except its not!

Because this expects everyone works together and no one is malicious or unstable. For example, the first person to press against the voting pattern throws the whole thing off. This could fuck things up for everyone, and while you may think 'Why would you possibly want that?' as the red and blue presses trickle in, you cannot account for people not being dicks or ruining a clean tally. A 100% red/blue outcome would be optimal but you cannot ensure this since you don't control other people's votes or expect them to vote logically.

Now here's the catch. Since the first person gets to see everyone else's vote, they can make a generous assumption the 2nd person, and 3rd and hopefully start of the chain will be follow what they press, granted this assumption they know one benefit voting blue goes. If the majority vote blue, even if 49% are malicious and break the chain, than everyone will be safe. Counterpoint, if they decide to vote red first, than to ensure no one dies they now have to either rely on everyone choosing red, in good faith or depend on malicious actors to slant it to blue, which cannot be predicted accurately. Early blue buttoners have a built in advantage here, one that logically carries over to same consistency as the anonymous scenario. They have the ability to chance the outcome at the very beginning, since say by the 1000000th voter, its unreasonable to vote against the majority acknowledging you now cannot chance the outcome in any way.

This is the Chain of Suspicion made visible. In the Dark Forest, you don't see intentions, you only see actions, a civilization that suddenly goes silent, or one that fires a photoid. Civilizations once aware of Dark Forest Theory either make the choice to stay silent with the probabilistic option of hiding and staying, or don't and make the statistically weaker option that other civilizations are like them and either they can survive an incursion or eat a photoid or Vector Foil.

The chain only needs a majority, not unanimity. With the absence of communication, this is exactly how the Dark Forest operates. The very first action observed (a planetary sterilization, a sudden radioactive silence from a neighboring star) becomes the only data point that decides every action of that civilization after.

Take the linear-voting scenario to space cosmology. In the Dark Forest, that 11th voter is the technological explosion. A civilization that was broadcasting peace for centuries could, in a cosmic eyeblink, undergo a radical ideological shift into xenophobia, be overtaken by a malicious AI, or simply invent a weapon so powerful that it can no longer resist the temptation of a first strike. You can’t predict it. A trusted neighbor can become a god-like threat virtually overnight. This makes a chain of suspicion 100% against cooperation. The theory states that the only way to be truly safe from this unpredictable voter is to eliminate them before they have a chance to come into contact at all.

Presently, in 3BP's setting the cosmic majority has already preemptively voted Red for eternity, and anyone who steps into the voting booth to press Blue is quietly eliminated.

But there is an interesting little dangling silver lining to this. A twist (Spoilers for Death's End). The series presents this as a sort of universal tragedy, civs squishing others, based on whoever 'voted 1st' at the very beginning. Some civ picked red, others kept the consistency and kept crushing others. The series presents a universe reset, with the possibility the dark forest ended. They're the first new voters with any agency in eons.