Chaosophy - autonomous learning

Now, I think the question of "true difference" is, in fact, the question
raised in the problem of the object. Just now, Felix, in referring to
Lacan's teachings (and you came back to them), situated the "a"
object in relation to the "ego," to the person, etc.
Felix Guattari: ... the person and the family ...
Serge Leclaire: Now, the concept of the "a" object in Lacan is part
of a quaternary which includes the signifier, which is dual (51 and
52), and the subject (the crossed out 5). True difference, if this
expression were to be used, would be situated between the signifier
on the one hand and the "a" object on the other.
I don't mind that at no moment it would be advisable, for
either pious or impious reasons, to use the term of signifier.
Whatever the case, I don't see how you can challenge some duality
and promote the "a" object as self-sufficient, like some substitute
for an impious God. I don't think you can support a thesis, a project,
an action, a "contraption," without introducing somewhere a
duality, and all it entails.
Felix Guattari: I'm not at all sure that the concept of the "a" object
in Lacan is anything but a vanishing point, an escape, precisely,
from the despotic character of signifying chains.
Serge Leclaire: What interests me most, and what I am trying to
articulate in a way quite obviously different from yours, is how desire
is deployed in the social machine. I don't think we can go without a
precise clarification of the object's function. Then it will be necessary
to specify its relationship with other elements at work in the
machine, "signifying" elements (symbolic and imaginary ones, if you
prefer). These relationships don't operate in a single direction, that is,
the "signifying" elements have a backlash effect on the object.
i: '! Fiu.x: / 81