Jairo Ferreira 208 sidering implied power relations can only be an act of abstraction from the object under study. Je dis qu’il faut supposer tétradique ce qui fait le lien borroméen – que la perversion ne veut dire que version pour le père –, que, en somme, le père est un symptôme » (LACAN, 2005, p. 20).4 That is, for Lacan, psychic semiosis is crossed by the symptom that mediates it; in other words, there is no imaginary, real, and symbolic without the crossing of the father’s version (which we call power here). Imaginary Real Symbolic Symptom 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 From that moment on, we begin to deal, analogically, with the similarity between first, second, and third; icon, index, and interpretant; imaginary, real, and symbolic. However, as Lacan does, it is to differentiate the symbolic from what power is (by analogy, any belief that is not based on free argumenta- tion, proof, evidence, as idealized by contemporary scientific fields). We do this not in the sense of plasticizing the analogies but rather problematizing from this inference. Speculatively, we can consider that the central question of the analysis is to reveal not only what is activated as imaginary, real, and symbolic, in matrices of mutual agency (1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 2.1; 2.2; 2.3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3), but, mainly, to scan the interpositions of the fourth (perversion) that crosses consti- tuting the first, second, and third, at the same time that it is fed by the imaginary, real and symbolic. Discovering the fourth in its “purity” is, in the diagram, the revelation of 4.4, that is, in a first matrix, power as power in itself and for itself, that autho4 Perversion est homophone de père-version (padre-versiòn), y vers signifie "hacia".
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz