Negation. Thought of the Day 99.0


Negation reveals more a neurotic attitude towards jouissance, denounced as a perverse desire, that dominates both political and social life. Negation presupposes the acquisition of the meaning of “No” and it suggests a vigorous and compromising attitude between an idea remaining unconscious (repressed) and conscious at the same time. Thus, to negate means to go against the law and succumb to jouissance in a concealed way. Negating castration releases a destructive force against the paternal function, a force fuelled with jouissance. It is not the symbolic reality, but the non-symbolic real as a threatening source that is being negated. This means that the real is actually expressed through symbolic means, but in a negative form. Disavowal, involves a sexualization of the object precluding the threat of castration as punishment. But the threat is still there in the unconscious, whereas negation means that castration is negated even in the unconscious. Negation does not suggest a compromise (in the form of a splitting of the ego) between the denial of something and its acceptance, as disavowal does. Rather, it maintains the repressed status of castration by allowing the latter to be unconsciously expressed in its negated status. So, negation has a more hostile and aggressive attitude (originating in the death drive) towards castration, whereas disavowal originates in Eros. Disavowal does not go against castration, but keeps it at bay by not acknowledging it, which is different from negating it. In this way, the sexualization of the object (the mother’s phallus) remains intact. Therefore, the responsibility for extracting jouissance is also negated.


Ganesha’s Trunk as a Misplaced Phallus

Psychoanalysis immunes itself with the impregnable wall of symbolic[ism], despite creating a level playing field of having multiple symbolic connotations. In a nutshell, one cannot afford to discount the plethora of analysis. This is a boon and a bane and could even co-exist, be compossible.


The trunk of Ganesha as a weak phallus, at the wrong place and therefore devoid of all potency on the one hand is accorded a co-planar ontology with his being a transgender thriving on oral sex. I do understand the repulsion caused in the insider with such a treatment given to a deity, but, it makes good sense, if one goes by the Lacanian dictum of ‘Symbolic’ as the radical alterity, the radical ‘Other’. Therein, the dislodging of the ‘insider’ by the insinuating alterity, or , ‘other’, through causing repulsion could meet its counterpoint only in the mirror (as in lateral inversion), where, the roles would undergo switching of responsibilities, in that of an ‘insider’ versus the ‘other’. Such a reaction from the ‘insider’ to the ‘other’ would succeed in fighting the tenuous proof with something equally tenuous, or would raise stakes. Personally, I feel for such a psychoanalytical reading as fecund for thought, even if on the surface, most of it appears preposterous.