Observations on "What does Lacan say about...desire? by Owen Hewitson"

 If for Lacan, the signifier slides under the signified, unlike perhaps the commonsensical notion of a signifier, if not a series of them sliding over the signified - what may the signifier be here but desire itself?

Here, we do see why for Lacan, desire is always the desire of the other, for it seems that the signifier is produced in a moment of anxiety in confronting the Other. 

    - Sunday, 10th April, 2022.

Yet what if our very understanding of the subject is only accountable as desire? Would this not be the very faculty which allows us to identify the gap in the Other to begin with?

Lacan notes, that here - it would be imperative that the subject find a mechanism to sustain their desire, and here it would be impossible to avoid the subject of - if not a transference, let us call a certain displacement. 

What shifts here is the object of fixation, an operation which is necessary via the mechanism of transference, were the subject able to reconstitute their desire. The proof of such a transference would only be evident in the inability of the new object of fixation to; the demand as it were to satisfy the desire which posits it. The lesson here is simply that the metonymic fixation is always a stand-in for desire itself; which appears here within psychoanalysis, as the only signified. 

The truly interesting, generic question would be whether this process of displacement may be employed via the subject to posit a demand that cannot be conceptualized when the signifier alone is what slides. To be clearer, if desire retroactively constitutes the subject, via its enunciation, can the signified as desire, representing the subject not itself be 'displaced'?

An ideal scenario of this would be a patient of trauma retracing a certain sequence of events - the narrative as it were, hence understanding how things come to be what they were. 

A more complicated, though commonplace example however would be the public use of masks, or what effectively is the same thing - the private use of screens. these via communication through the internet, permit for forms of displacement in the desiring subject which are opaque, novel and requiring investigation. Here, we would do well to pay credence to Zizek who has made some pioneering analyses regarding configurations of subjectivity in the digital personae.  

What is emphasized by the piece ( https://www.lacanonline.com/2010/05/what-does-lacan-say-about-desire/ ), indeed what will remain key to the psychoanalytic process in its investigation of the unconscious is not the experience of sublimation into dream images as such, but rather the putting into world of such experiences.

The question of interest which then presents itself to us is 'the nodal point by which the pulsation of the unconscious is linked to sexual reality...'; why is this a question? Perhaps because it reveals itself to us, consciously, and not as an impressionistic image - in the use of the word, its inflection, stress and relations with others in the discourse. Let us be clear here, Lacan is not talking about the master signifier which orients discourses ( god, man, democracy etc.) but the object cause of desire, or the object petit a.