Some Ideas on Objects

Harman mentions that Husserl is an object oriented idealist. Objects always are there as objects in consciousness for Husserl. Whatever their outside reality at least they could be called subjectively given. In Lacan's analysis of the Purloined Letter he makes note of the subjective drama going on in the two scenes where the letter is taken. Both the queen and the magistrate know where the letter is but she cannot take it back, she thought it was hidden. Dupin's action of taking back the letter also does this except it was never hidden it was just a different letter when the magistrate's back was turned. He also makes note of how the police looked for the letter everywhere but even though they looked everywhere they missed something in this everywhere because it was not in its place. They as subjects were situated in something. We could say the objects they were revealed subjectively as something but they lied. The subjects work to make the objects lie. In the queen's case the she failed and for Dupin it was a success. The objects are always our power enemies. We lay our hands on them and try to make them something, try to talk about them, but the want to be their ontic selves. This is why materialism is mentioned around speculative realism (my ignorance is showing, this is only my guess).

Onticicity is more than simply the subjective conception of being given to objects. It is not what makes them objects, it is their irreduceablity itself in relation to language and being. When they form an alliance with us they say "alright I will buy into this ontology of yours". And within that ontology their onticity remains as part of that ontology.

Does this make sense though if we regard objects as events though? I may have forgotten that.

Dream Analysis Part 3: Lacan

Okay for the final analysis I will be working with an interpretation that I am not as experienced with. A Lacanian analysis of my dream. The ordinary interpretation that I have developed so far is that the dream is reminding me of my situation with love. But this is looking at the dream's symbolic content which may be distracting from its real content. What my secret wish was, to make the right choice no matter what regarding love, under the Freudian interpretation is not really important. What is more important is the fact that it used school, tests, teachers, extroverted classmates, and symbols that link to art history and geek culture to fulfill this wish. The dream had to use this because the unconscious ideas needed a way to be articulated in the symbolic order which makes them morally okay. The imagery of school is deemed as fine. All these things are removed from the world of dating and romance. This shows what exactly my unconscious thinks is okay, what can be allowed. School, girls I would never date, geek culture, and anime comics about romance are all fine for me. It betrayed itself most in the comic though and that is why the both the Freudian and Jungian analysis was able to get as far as it did. What exactly is wrong with romance? Well it goes back to my grand conflict with the religion that I am raised with. Under this religion dating is something that people in the market for marriage. Dating would be a sign of my rejection, thus my death on judgement day. This is the dream's real meaning under Lacanian interpretation.

Well that's all, I learned alot. Dreams have more meaning than you may think especially if you remember them.