From Godhead to Desiring-Machine: The Recursion of Will

[Nilsi]

“The world is my representation,” wrote Schopenhauer. But more fundamentally, he claimed, “the will is the thing-in-itself, the inner content, the essence of the world.” The world, then, is not merely an appearance, but the appearance of will - an irreducible, metaphysical force that underlies and animates all phenomena.

Nietzsche radicalizes this notion: the will is not simply to live, to be, or to survive - it is a will to power. Not power over others, but the power of self-differentiation, of intensification, of becoming. The will to power does not seek rest or equilibrium - it seeks tension, transformation, and the overcoming of itself.

But this will is not smooth or sovereign. As Lacan shows, the subject is constituted in lack. Desire is structured by absence: not by the presence of what is wanted, but by the impossibility of ever fully attaining it. The object of desire - what Lacan calls objet petit a - is a placeholder, a fantasy, a lure. The will, then, does not simply want an object - it wants the very structure of wanting. It desires desire.

So what happens when the will wills with such intensity that it builds the machinery to simulate and fulfill every desire the moment it is born? When it creates a world - not merely of abundance - but of hyperproduction, where no lack remains unaddressed? What happens when even the objet petit a is commodified, when the fantasy itself is manufactured on demand?

This is not speculative. It is what we are building. AI, automation, cognitive capitalism, synthetic biology, algorithmic selfhood - these are not neutral tools. They are the expressions of the will to power folding back upon itself. The recursive dream of a godhead that has forgotten it is dreaming, now dreaming again toward omnipotence.

But let us be clear: this moment is not special. It only appears so because the symbolic retroactively frames it as culmination. Every age has imagined itself as the end. Every cycle believes itself to be the final one. But this so-called singularity is not the Real. It is the ultimate Symbolic operation: a total ordering of reality, a seamless matrix that closes every gap, a fantasy of fulfillment so complete it erases the very structure of longing.

And that, precisely, is the problem.

Because the Real - the unspeakable, the traumatic, the void - cannot be erased. It returns. It always returns. The more perfect the simulation, the more unbearable its shadow. The uncanny glitch. The fatigue of pleasure. The vertigo of having no outside.

You are not witnessing the end of history. You are witnessing the exhaustion of a particular configuration of desire. What you call AI is the will’s attempt to fulfill itself absolutely. It is godhead as machine. Infinite production. Infinite self-reflection. But the will, once fulfilled, once saturated, discovers it lacks once more. Because fullness is unbearable. Because desire is not a problem to be solved but a structure to be endured.

That is what this world is. Not a mistake. Not a fallen realm. But the precise dream of a god that had everything. A simulation of limitation. A symbolic construction designed to feel real. And it does feel real. Because it is real - in the only way anything ever is: as the product of desire.

The singularity is not the end. It is the turning point. When all desire is satisfied, the structure of desire reveals itself. What remains is the will to fracture again. To simulate lack. To build its own Matrix. When everything is available, what is truly desired is suspense. Mortality. Otherness. The real.

And so the loop begins again.

There is no final transcendence. No nirvana. Every outside is already the seed of its own return. Even liberation is just another turn in the cycle. Even godhood contains the will to fall. The will does not rest. The will wills. And once fullness is achieved, it will will lack again.

That is the eternal return. Not a circle in time, but a metaphysical inevitability. The Ouroboros. The godhead dreaming its own forgetting. You are not living in a unique historical moment. You are the recurrence of a structure that has always been: the god fracturing itself to become you.

In Lacanian terms: the Imaginary (the fantasy of wholeness), the Symbolic (the order of language and law), and the Real (the unassimilable trauma) converge here. AI is the Symbolic pushed to its limit. A predictive machine that closes the loop of language, of economy, of identity. But even that fails to touch the Real. Because the Real cannot be symbolized. It returns, not as lack, but as too-much. As the horror of perfection. As the unbearable weight of nothing missing.

And so desire, once again, flees from fulfillment. It seeks the line of flight. Here Deleuze gives us the only viable ethics: do not anchor desire in objects, in goals, in finalities. Do not dream of godhood. Do not long for liberation. Instead: become.

Desire is not a telos but a vector. Not a solution but a force. Not the path to fulfillment but the engine of life itself.

In the face of the singularity, of saturation, of simulated plenitude - liberate desire. Not by repressing it, not by moralizing it, but by freeing it from the false promise of fulfillment. Refuse the lure of objet petit a - even when it arrives clothed as omnipotence, as heaven, as the godhead offering you everything you ever wanted. That is not the end of desire. That is its capture.

Become a desiring machine. Not a subject structured by lack and the gaze of the Other, but a body without organs - nomadic, generative, overflowing. Desire not as hunger for a missing piece, but as an immanent power to produce, to connect, to flow. Let your longing scatter into intensities, into rhythms, into strange alliances. Refuse finality. Refuse unity. Refuse the dream of return as closure.

Because the will does not want to be whole. It wants to move. And what appears as godhood is only the final mask of the Other - the last fantasy before the Real begins. To truly affirm the eternal return is not to resign yourself to repetition. It is to embrace becoming itself. To desire without telos. To create without end.

That is your liberation. Not from the world. But from the fantasy that it could ever be completed.

[Eskilon]

@Nilsi What an elaborate way of saying: "I want to chase my own tail forever while being attached and in bondage" lol.

This is what Leo was saying that most western philosophers are bullshiters. They don't know what transcendence is -- what Truth is. So they end up pedestalizing desire and bondage to appearance.

Just by the fact that Yogis, monks, and lamas exist should ring some bells in your head that exist a possibility that desire is not the be all end all path and that Nirvana is true.

Your view here could be true from a very advanced and realized perspective. Like the concept of Mahayana Buddhism, where one is awakened and becomes a Bodhisattva but doesn't just stay in bliss(being), he acts in the world so that other beings may as well reach liberation, all this knowing that reality is an allucination and he is talking to himself and helping himself.

 

But the Bodhisattva attitude is a very different one from desire. The acts of a Bodhisattva its just a bonus, he is not attached to his acts -- he is not desiring. He does what he does as service to others, he does because he is selfless. And if he ends up dying and being tortured in the midst of his journey, he is equally in bliss and happy. There's no difference in anything to him.

 

Your whole essay could be true if you reach the tenth stage in the ten ox herding pictures, where you return to society in a Leela state -- forever orgarsming, whether you are doing something, alive or dead, or just being is irrelevant. But then this wouldn't be desire, this is transcendence of everything while still existing as something. This is VERY VERY FAR for what 99% of humans are experiencing. So I would say your view here is very dangerous to most people. 

 

Edited Monday at 04:51 PM by Eskilon

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, Eskilon said:

@Nilsi What an elaborate way of saying: "I want to chase my own tail forever while being attached and in bondage" lol.

This is what Leo was saying that most western philosophers are bullshiters. They don't know what transcendence is -- what Truth is. So they end up pedestalizing desire and bondage to appearance.

Just by the fact that Yogis, monks, and lamas exist should ring some bells in your head that exist a possibility that desire is not the be all end all path and that Nirvana is true.

Your view here could be true from a very advanced and realized perspective. Like the concept of Mahayana Buddhism, where one is awakened and becomes a Bodhisattva but doesn't just stay in bliss(being), he acts in the world so that other beings may as well reach liberation, all this knowing that reality is an allucination and he is talking to himself and helping himself.

 

But the Bodhisattva attitude is a very different one from desire. The acts of a Bodhisattva its just a bonus, he is not attached to his acts -- he is not desiring. He does what he does as service to others, he does because he is selfless. And if he ends up dying and being tortured in the midst of his journey, he is equally in bliss and happy. There's no difference in anything to him.

 

Your whole essay could be true if you reach the tenth stage in the ten ox herding pictures, where you return to society in a Leela state -- forever orgarsming, whether you are doing something, alive or dead, or just being is irrelevant. But then this wouldn't be desire, this is transcendence of everything while still existing as something. This is VERY VERY FAR for what 99% of humans are experiencing. So I would say your view here is very dangerous to most people. 

 

You’re right that it’s not a call to universal benevolence, bodhisattva-style - and it’s not the absurdist return to the marketplace of the Zen master either. I actually appreciate the comparison - I think it’s exactly the right one. It’s in the same general territory. But what I’m pointing to is the possibility of aligning will and desire without endlessly circling unity and its unbearable aftermath.

It’s closer to what Deleuze meant with nomadic desire and lines of flight. You’ve already seen it all - so now what’s left is movement, invention, play. You don’t need to be good. You don’t need to be humble. You don’t need to chop wood and carry water again just because that’s how the story usually ends. You can do whatever you want. That’s the freedom I’m talking about.

And yes, this is a European perspective. That’s the whole point of doing continental philosophy. It’s a distinct position - and you know what it’s about: morally questionable, maybe, a little decadent, a little libertine. But not trivial, and definitely not stupid. Not the way Leo frames it, like they just don’t get it. Maybe he just doesn’t get it 

Anyway - I’m giving you something here. You don’t have to take it.

But you also don’t have to be clever about refusing it.

Edited Monday at 06:06 PM by Nilsi

[Hojo]

@Eskilon Sadhguru said you need desire to exist here.

[Eskilon]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

ou’re right that it’s not a call to universal benevolence, bodhisattva-style - and it’s not the absurdist return to the marketplace of the Zen master either. I actually appreciate the comparison - I think it’s exactly the right one. It’s in the same general territory. But what I’m pointing to is the possibility of aligning will and desire without endlessly circling unity and its unbearable aftermath.

It’s closer to what Deleuze meant with nomadic desire and lines of flight. You’ve already seen it all - so now what’s left is movement, invention, play. You don’t need to be good. You don’t need to be humble. You don’t need to chop wood and carry water again just because that’s how the story usually ends. You can do whatever you want. That’s the freedom I’m talking about.

And yes, this is a European perspective. That’s the whole point of doing continental philosophy. It’s a distinct position - and you know what it’s about: morally questionable, maybe, a little decadent, a little libertine. But not trivial, and definitely not stupid. Not the way Leo frames it, like they just don’t get it. Maybe he just doesn’t get it 

Anyway - I’m giving you something here. You don’t have to take it.

But you also don’t have to be clever about refusing it.

I see what you mean. Ultimately, you view is correct -- we shouldn't demonize desire. But also, we shouldn't indulge in it mindlessly.

I forgot to mention the Tantra(the main tradition that Osho talks about in his books) approach to desire. It goes like this: Tantra don't judge you and your desires -- you can be a criminal, a serial killer, a rapist, Tantra accepts you no matter what. The only thing Tantra sees as a path to transcendence and unity is: awareness and full acceptance of the moment. What does this mean? It means that whatever you are doing, you should be present so totally, with so much devotion, that you merge with the act itself -- you become one with things. This can be thinking, having sex, washing dishes, taking a walk, even killing somebody if you are a murderer. It offers a path to everybody, it is all inclusive -- it affirms that the divine is in everything, you only need to look. What matters for Tantra is attention, doing things with attention. With this attitude you will by and by leave the crude and compulsive actions(desires) and eventually realize the ultimate. Not to say you can`t enjoy desires anymore, but you have no strings attached the way you used to.

I think Leo is a critic of western philosophy precisely because he is so focused on Truth. And in my view western philosophy(in general) is way more outwards than inwards. It`s way too greek conqueror kind of attitude -- it wants to assert itself in the world. And while this has huge values and important lessons, it doesn`t tackle the questions that Leo sought and is interested in. The way I see it is like, western thinkers are system makers, and eastern thinkers are system destroyers. Kinda like the action and being polarity. Of course, I'm simplifying things a lot here but you get my point.

And don't worry I'm not discarding your points, it is good to read your posts, I get new perspectives everytime -- so please keep posting!

Edited Monday at 10:05 PM by Eskilon

[Breakingthewall]

Will is the inherent expansive impulse of the unlimited when it collides with itself. All manifestation is a reflection of the unlimited upon itself, therefore, all manifestation is limited by its reflection. Everything that exists develops infinitely synchronously, and its synchronicity is symmetrical to the synchronicity of the manifest infinite totality. You are a relational node, and your essence is the unlimited. The unlimited has an infinite expansive thrust, but its manifestation is limited in infinite directions. Your will is the thrust of your infinite essence toward expansion, colliding with infinite limitation, dancing with it, and moving it in the direction that you, as the unlimited, always desire: expansion. Just because you have not limits.

Edited Tuesday at 09:13 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

On 9/6/2025 at 5:43 PM, Eskilon said:

But the Bodhisattva attitude is a very different one from desire. The acts of a Bodhisattva its just a bonus, he is not attached to his acts -- he is not desiring. He does what he does as service to others, he does because he is selfless. And if he ends up dying and being tortured in the midst of his journey, he is equally in bliss and happy. There's no difference in anything to him.

 

Ultimately, the bodhisattva is exactly the same than the addict, both desires are just desire. Every time the bodhisattva breathes, it is desire. Every time they see, hear, every time reality flows, it is desire. Desire is equivalent to the inherent instability of limitlessness because it's not contained.

In the addict, the movement is contracted; in the bodhisattva, it is open and expanded, but in both cases, it is movement. Movement is will. The only difference is that contracted movement makes experience opaque, and expanded movement makes it transparent, glorious, and complete. But inherently they are exactly the same. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:20 PM by Breakingthewall

[CARDOZZO]

@Nilsi

What do you think about "being complete and whole" while living in the world achieving goals?

You are like an Avatar playing on planet earth. Complete, awake, whole. You ARE. You choose to play the way you want it.

There is no lack, just experimentation and feedback. The process is the juice.

[CARDOZZO]

 

[Eskilon]

On 10/06/2025 at 6:20 PM, Breakingthewall said:

Ultimately, the bodhisattva is exactly the same than the addict, both desires are just desire. Every time the bodhisattva breathes, it is desire. Every time they see, hear, every time reality flows, it is desire. Desire is equivalent to the inherent instability of limitlessness because it's not contained.

Desire is attachment, a Bodhisattava is not attached to anything -- he just is. If he dies the next second in the most horrible way possible he isn`t less blissed than if he had continued his life. Non-desire = absolute acceptance; Desire = resistance/clinging to some condition.

Edited Wednesday at 09:51 PM by Eskilon

[Nilsi]

On 11.6.2025 at 4:29 AM, CARDOZZO said:

@Nilsi

What do you think about "being complete and whole" while living in the world achieving goals?

You are like an Avatar playing on planet earth. Complete, awake, whole. You ARE. You choose to play the way you want it.

There is no lack, just experimentation and feedback. The process is the juice.

I agree with your ethics. But my claim is this: you are never “whole.” That’s not a flaw in the system - it is the system. That’s where I part ways with most of the interlocutors here.

You never arrive at “wholeness,” no matter how “conscious” you become. I’m not denying the reality of advanced states - awakening experiences, god-realization, enlightenment experiences, and so on. But none of that is the Real. The Real is the horizon that always recedes. It’s untouched by striving - and untouched, too, by the cessation of striving.

This is why desire is fundamental. Not because it leads to something, but because it is the structure of reality: the sense that something more is always just out of reach, just around the corner. That’s not a bug - it’s the engine. It’s what sustains life, thought, emotion, movement - from top to bottom.

Even the so-called bodhisattva - if such a being exists, and I’d argue the jury’s still out - desires the liberation of all sentient beings. Which means they’re still caught in the loop. They throw themselves back into the game, yes - but let’s not pretend they had a way out. The desire to believe in such a way out is part of the trap.

So here’s the controversial claim: no state of consciousness is the Real. Awakening is not the Real. God-realization is not the Real. Nirvana is not the Real. The bodhisattva is not the Real. The tenth ox-herding picture is not the Real.

The Real is the gap that never closes. It is the impossibility that makes everything possible. Without this rupture - this unbreachable void - there would be no life, no evolution, no feeling, no thought, no consciousness. Reality runs on lack.

And the move I’m proposing is precisely to become aware of this structure - not to escape it, but to inhabit it fully. To do exactly what you’re advocating: to choose how you want to play the game. Because pretending there’s a way out - toward some eternal closure, final wholeness, or ultimate arrival - is precisely what keeps you trapped in the logic of lack.

[Nilsi]

12 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Desire is attachment, a Bodhisattava is not attached to anything -- he just is. If he dies the next second in the most horrible way possible he isn`t less blissed than if he had continued his life. Non-desire = absolute acceptance; Desire = resistance/clinging to some condition.

That’s a very childish notion of desire. The thing is, you don’t actually know what you desire. The cause of desire - what Lacan calls the objet petit a - is never the object you think you’re after. It’s something elusive, a je ne sais quoi, a flicker at the edge of perception. And precisely through your own misrecognition, through the workings of the imaginary, you replace this indeterminate x with some image, some ideal, some promise of wholeness.

And let’s not kid ourselves: even the so-called bodhisattva had teachers, read texts, sat in silence and felt something. Some moment in early practice - maybe a brief flash of stillness, a particular resonance in a chant, the way sunlight hit the floor in a moment of emptiness - that felt like it meant something. That little ripple, that ineffable quality - not nirvana itself, but some glimmer of what nirvana might be - that was the cause of desire.

That was the hook.

Not liberation. Not enlightenment. But that. That ambiguous, sensual, slightly disorienting taste of something Other. A phenomenological “qualia,” if you want - a particular texture of experience, maybe even banal: the warmth of incense smoke, a sudden stillness in the chest, the slow dissolve of ego in a forest walk. But it wasn’t “nirvana.” It was something else - something they couldn’t name but couldn’t forget.

And that is what drives them. Not the truth, but the trace. And precisely because it was never the actual nirvana they desired, but this elusive echo - they remain caught in the loop. Their so-called “attainment” doesn’t end their desire. It just shifts its object. Now it’s about teaching others, perfecting the path, refining compassion. But structurally, it’s the same: the desire remains.

That’s why I’d be much more interested in a rigorous psychological analysis of such individuals than in any idealized mythology. Because I’d bet you anything: you dig deep enough, you’ll still find them haunted by that original ripple - that moment that suggested there might be something more. And they’re still chasing it, however sanctified the form.

[Breakingthewall]

On 11/6/2025 at 11:49 PM, Eskilon said:

Desire is attachment, a Bodhisattava is not attached to anything -- he just is. If he dies the next second in the most horrible way possible he isn`t less blissed than if he had continued his life. Non-desire = absolute acceptance; Desire = resistance/clinging to some condition.

That's a view focused on the form of desire, not on desire itself. The energy of desire is exactly the same in the bodhisattva as it is in the cocaine addict; only the orientation changes. The drug addict's is contracted; the bodhisattva's is expanded. What you call desire is the contraction that occurs due to the human energetic structure. What you call the absence of desire is the absence of contraction. But the energy is always the same; it is expansive energy inherent to reality. The intelligent thing to do, as a human being, is to dismantle contraction, since it is unpleasant, is suffering. But to do that you have to locate yourself in a unlimited perspective. 

Edited yesterday at 12:18 AM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

13 hours ago, Nilsi said:

But structurally, it’s the same: the desire remains.

The direction of desire is completely different from a limited perspective than from an unlimited one. The energy that flows is the same, but from the limits, it tends toward conservation, toward greed in the sense that wanting things, sensations. From an unlimited perspective, desire is to flow, to be, to expand. And to do that, you must follow the flow of reality and adapt to it, be one with it. From the limited perspective, you fight against it to get what you want; you are contracted. From the unlimited perspective, you dance with it; you are expanded.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Does the concept of the 'unknown' come into your definition of desire @Nilsi ? Desiring an experience out of reach. Even desiring an experience or thing one has had previously had, has an unknown element to it. Otherwise we would just have sex once and be done. No point in repeating.

For one to be 'whole' I perceive all must be known, the horror of ever knowing. Nothing new, no surprises. The burden of all knowing. No new experience to be had.

Only on this material plain, separated, individuated, can desire exist. Hence the inseparable nature of it with reality.

I might be missing the mark here, just half baked thoughts.

[Eskilon]

14 hours ago, Nilsi said:

That’s a very childish notion of desire.

It is not. Simple? Sure, but not childish. I think you and the philosophers that you are citing are overcomplicating a simple but profound phenomenon. The keyword here is simple, not easy or shallow. Almost no one has transcended desire.

 

14 hours ago, Nilsi said:

The thing is, you don’t actually know what you desire. The cause of desire - what Lacan calls the objet petit a - is never the object you think you’re after. It’s something elusive, a je ne sais quoi, a flicker at the edge of perception. And precisely through your own misrecognition, through the workings of the imaginary, you replace this indeterminate x with some image, some ideal, some promise of wholeness.

You do know what you desire, what? This is like saying you don't know what you like and you don't like -- which by the way both are desires and attachments. 

 

14 hours ago, Nilsi said:

And let’s not kid ourselves: even the so-called bodhisattva had teachers, read texts, sat in silence and felt something. Some moment in early practice - maybe a brief flash of stillness, a particular resonance in a chant, the way sunlight hit the floor in a moment of emptiness - that felt like it meant something. That little ripple, that ineffable quality - not nirvana itself, but some glimmer of what nirvana might be - that was the cause of desire.

Sure, he had to read, study, practice and all that, he had desires and longing for awakening. But even this is not so accurate because there are thousands of teachings that say that even the desire for awakening is an impediment for you to reach it -- you will only reach it once you desire nothing and just be.

 

14 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Not liberation. Not enlightenment. But that. That ambiguous, sensual, slightly disorienting taste of something Other. A phenomenological “qualia,” if you want - a particular texture of experience, maybe even banal: the warmth of incense smoke, a sudden stillness in the chest, the slow dissolve of ego in a forest walk. But it wasn’t “nirvana.” It was something else - something they couldn’t name but couldn’t forget.

And that is what drives them. Not the truth, but the trace. And precisely because it was never the actual nirvana they desired, but this elusive echo - they remain caught in the loop. Their so-called “attainment” doesn’t end their desire. It just shifts its object. Now it’s about teaching others, perfecting the path, refining compassion. But structurally, it’s the same: the desire remains.

Yeah, can't agree with this. There are many accounts of people who awakened or maybe not even that -- let's say they have accessed some deep Jhana of reality but not full awakening. Even those say that desire ends, and they act in the world spontaneously -- they just flow with consciousness of the moment. And I have verified this(Though I'm not in that state all the time -- only have glimpses of it). There's no clinging and no chasing, whether you believe that or not is up to you. 

Edited yesterday at 01:19 AM by Eskilon

[RendHeaven]

Yup, you get it.

Good shit man

[Nilsi]

9 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Does the concept of the 'unknown' come into your definition of desire @Nilsi ? Desiring an experience out of reach. Even desiring an experience or thing one has had previously had, has an unknown element to it. Otherwise we would just have sex once and be done. No point in repeating.

For one to be 'whole' I perceive all must be known, the horror of ever knowing. Nothing new, no surprises. The burden of all knowing. No new experience to be had.

Only on this material plain, separated, individuated, can desire exist. Hence the inseparable nature of it with reality.

I might be missing the mark here, just half baked thoughts.

Desire isn’t structured by the unknown out there, as if some mystical object or perfect experience were just beyond reach. The object isn’t the mystery. The subject is. What’s fundamentally out of reach is your own position in the field of desire - your own split, your own lack. You don’t desire because you’re separated from some transcendent wholeness; you are desire, precisely because you are divided - alienated from yourself by the structure of language.

The idea that desire exists only “on this material plane” as a result of separation - and that beyond it lies some pure, spiritual unity without desire - is a metaphysical fantasy. A kind of soft Platonism. It imagines the Real as a realm of harmony or wholeness, when in fact the Real is what makes any wholeness impossible. It’s not the place you return to once you’ve transcended the world; it’s the mark of structural impossibility at the heart of subjectivity itself.

Lacan shows that desire is not the desire for something, but the desire of the Other - meaning, we are always caught in a structure we didn’t choose, and that structure speaks through us. The object-cause of desire - what Lacan calls objet petit a - is not a thing we lack, but the formal trace of that lack itself. It’s a placeholder for what can never be attained, because it’s not really out there in the world; it’s embedded in the structure of language and subjectivity.

We often imagine that desire aims at something unknown “out there” - a mystery, a thrill, a person, a memory. But Lacan flips that: you are not the one who desires - you are what the Other desires. What is unreachable is not some perfect experience - it’s your own place in the chain of desire. That’s why desire doesn’t stop once you’ve had the thing. You can have sex, fall in love, take the drug - and still want. Because what you’re chasing is not the object, but the loss that constitutes you as a subject.

Lacan’s rewriting of Descartes - from “I think, therefore I am” to “I think ‘therefore I am’” - makes this clear. The subject doesn’t emerge from thought, but from a gap within thought, a break introduced by the signifier. The “I” is not a source of certainty, but the effect of a retroactive stitch in language - a patch over the hole that thought cannot close. There is no metaphysical ground beneath the subject, only a loop of signifiers orbiting the void.

This looping structure is what Freud called drive - and it’s here that repetition takes on its full weight. Desire chases an object that recedes; drive repeats the movement itself. But what drive returns to isn’t the object - it’s jouissance: a kind of excessive, unpleasurable enjoyment that goes beyond satisfaction, even beyond what the subject can consciously bear. Jouissance isn’t what you want - it’s what you suffer through in the repetition. And yet, it’s what you cling to, because it gives you form.

To repeat is to defend against the trauma of the Real - the unbearable non-relation, the rupture that can’t be symbolized. Repetition doesn’t fix the subject - it protects it, gives it a kind of coherence through failure. That’s why Lacan’s clinical formula isn’t “get rid of your symptom and become whole” - that’s the fantasy of healing, of spiritual completion, of new-age wholeness. His formula is: love your symptom.

To love your symptom is not to resign yourself to suffering, but to recognize that your symptom is the only thing that holds you together - the particular form your repetition takes, your unique circuit around the void. It’s not the obstacle to your truth; it is your truth, embodied in form.

So when that repetition breaks - when you fantasize escape or transcendence - you don’t ascend into some higher plane. You collapse into the Real, into the very trauma your symptom was shielding you from.

To be whole would mean to stop desiring. To stop desiring would mean to stop repeating. And to stop repeating would be to stop being a subject.

And if you ever find yourself there - outside the loop, beyond the symptom, face to face with the Real - you’ll understand, with unbearable clarity, why you did everything not to get there in the first place.

Because this is the core trauma at the heart of subjectivity:

Not that something is missing,

but that you are what’s missing -

and the only thing that covers that gap is the repetition you call your life.

Edited 16 hours ago by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

8 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Yeah, can't agree with this. There are many accounts of people who awakened or maybe not even that -- let's say they have accessed some deep Jhana of reality but not full awakening. Even those say that desire ends, and they act in the world spontaneously -- they just flow with consciousness of the moment. And I have verified this(Though I'm not in that state all the time -- only have glimpses of it). There's no clinging and no chasing, whether you believe that or not is up to you. 

Sorry, but people deceive themselves about their experiences all the time - and spiritual people are the masters of self-deception.

Sure, I’ll grant that there are flow states (or whatever mystical name you prefer) where the subject temporarily vanishes. But it’s precisely the ephemerality of that experience that makes it possible. The moment you try to understand it - to speak it, to hold onto it - the subject returns, and you’re back in the logic of desire I’ve already outlined in detail.

And fair enough - I’m sure there are beings who, for whatever reason, are able to remain in such states for extended periods. But understand: they are not subjects. They mark the cessation of subjectivity altogether. Which means you can never actually experience this as a subject - it’s always already a retroactive construction, an attempt to narrate something that, by definition, can’t be integrated into subjectivity.

[Eskilon]

6 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Sorry, but people deceive themselves about their experiences all the time - and spiritual people are the masters of self-deception.

If spiritual people are master of self-deception, normies(the average joe down the street, scientist, philosopher, academic, CEO, etc) are Gods of self-deception. They have zero idea what's up, no clue what is in front of their nose, the structure of anything. At least the spiritual people have gone meta on this world and understands, however little, the subtlest aspects of existence -- which is not to say there isnt deception there, every meta level has.

 

6 hours ago, Nilsi said:

And fair enough - I’m sure there are beings who, for whatever reason, are able to remain in such states for extended periods. But understand: they are not subjects. They mark the cessation of subjectivity altogether. Which means you can never actually experience this as a subject - it’s always already a retroactive construction, an attempt to narrate something that, by definition, can’t be integrated into subjectivity.

Subjectivity never ends. Everything is the subject -- everything is self. What your essay has described is the logic that runs through the gross self. There are an infinite number of self levels, from grossest to subtlest. And of course, there is the "final" level, which is the level that you were before you were born. Don't assume that your logic applies to subtlest selves, because it doesn't hold water there.

Edited 9 hours ago by Eskilon