And Now For Something Completely Different

If I was a book in a library, then I'd finally be free

Zeno and the Logic of Fantasy

with 2 comments

So, my friend Josh and I were at our coffee-shop talking over Stumptown-filled mugs. Those conversations are workshops for us, and in this one we ended up talking about, after making another interesting arc through psychoanalysis, Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. Josh offered a “solution.”

For those who don’t know it, in this story Achilles and a tortoise get in a race. The tortoise requests a bit of a head-start, as Achilles is surely faster than he is. However, Achilles realizes that (or the tortoise comes around to explain that) if he gives the tortoise a head-start, to catch up to him he will have to traverse half the distance already between him and the tortoise. What’s more is that this problem is built into every (half-) point conceivable in the whole situation– Achilles would have to go half of half of half of half ad infinitum. In the end, Achilles concedes the race to the tortoise before even attempting it. 

The paradoxical point is that movement is impossible, in theory. Josh had thought of a solution a while ago, long before even I was interested in (Lacanian) psychoanalysis, which is to make one’s aim an infinitesimal point just beyond where you’re “really” going. Seeing this as an opportunity to make an explanatory point with an example given to me, I jumped nearly out of my seat and said, “that’s it right there– that’s the objet petit a!” This is not a solution, in the sense that it rids us of Zeno’s paradox, but that it allows us to displace the problem in a way that makes it conventionally not the same problem, if a problem at all.

I had figured that Zizek, if not other Lacanians before him, already made this connection. I looked back in my copy of Looking Awry: An Introduction to Lacan through Popular Culture, and sure enough Zizek opens the book with a strikingly similar analysis. Zizek’s point in Looking Awry is that the tortoise is this impossible object that, by the logic of the drive, we constantly encircle but never actually achieve. I’d like to make a different point though. 

What we get from the paradox as Zeno gave it to us is that movement is suppose to be impossible. The impossible quality is in movement itself. I immediately recognized in my friend’s “solution” that what he was doing, and I explained this to him, was moving the impossibility out of movement itself and into an object. The tortoise could be this object, which is Zizek’s position, but for a different reason. As I see it, this solution explains the logic of the impossible kernel of the Real as the condition of the possibility of “reality.” In this sense, Zeno is quite literally correct when he seeks to imply that movement is an illusion. This illusion is what Lacan would call fantasy.

What we should also get from Zeno, then, aside from classical and otherwise interpretations, is that it prompts us to give a solution that is (or allows us to better grasp) precisely the logic of fantasy itself. It is not simply that the tortoise is an object with which it is impossible to meet, but that Achilles really can match and exceed the tortoise insofar as he is aiming beyond it and, presumably, the finish line too. If the aim is the tortoise, as Zizek explains it, then of course Achilles will never attain it lest all he attains is its always-already lost status and it just disappears.

This taken qua the logic of fantasy means that “reality” as we know it requires an impossible kernel of the Real in order to exist.  This is why I don’t think Zizek’s interpretation really goes the distance, so to speak, because we can grasp an even more elementary principle if we take the position that movement or reality– i.e. Symbolic contrivance– is possible only insofar as we displace its Real impossibility into an impossible object that, by definition, exceeds our conventional, conscious aim.

We should be cautious of the naive realist’s interpretation of this logic though, for whom it would seem that this logic is supposed to be a conscious one we employ in a pragmatic fashion. The logic of fantasy is not conscious, except for the few of us who have traversed it. 

Advertisements

Written by Joe

July 13, 2007 at 1:25 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. An instructive application of Lacan’s approach to Fantasy. My question is, do you equate the location of Object (a) with the tortoise as signifier of lack in relation to Fantasy or Desire?

    Isn’t the lack within the subject (Achilles) related to the signifier of Desire (Tortoise) not fantasy?

    discourses

    July 26, 2007 at 11:39 pm

  2. I haven’t worked out a proper and thorough topological reading of the paradox, but the tortoise is the objet a, in the instance of the tale, in relation to Achilles desire. In the instance of the kind of worldly implications of motion and its apparent impossibility, I locate the tortoise as the objet a in relation to (Achilles’?) Fantasy. Zizek, as I mentioned, already makes this basic analysis, and identifies the tortoise in the former sense, though as an instructive example for understanding the drives.

    The story works on two levels: ostensibly from the subject position of Achilles, but also as an example of how we should all view the world. I think the intended impact is to be appreciated through the latter. In that case, the more relevant discussion is about the constitutive kernal of the Real that is by categorical necessity an impossiblity giving way to the possible. My point is that Fantasy emerges in tandem with its impossibility, such that the tortoise (the objet a) doesn’t make (the subject’s) reality, but it nonetheless sustains it. In that sense, the tortoise is the impossible object-cause of desire that if really obtained would, if not itself, make reality melt away, such as in Oedipus Rex when he blinds himself; or in an example Zizek provides of some science fiction story where an object is transported in time, but then something goes wrong and reality disappears but the object remains.

    pdxstudent

    July 27, 2007 at 4:57 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: