3. Third lecture: Primordial Subjectivity
In this lecture, we continue the more modern approach to subjectivity, and I use one of the rather well-known old articles by Lacan to illustrate different subjectivities. However, after discussing that, I move to much more fundamental ideas—the role of evolutionary truth and primordial subjectivity in the survival of humankind as a species. This is the first real attempt to tie together Darwinism and symbols from religion; however, I remain within the framework of evolutionary truth.
Coping with the Will of the Primordial Subjectivity
If we acknowledge that our true subjectivity exists and resides outside of our direct understanding (is unconscious), then it is also inevitable to acknowledge its influence on our conscious thoughts and behavior. In a sense, we cannot be in direct dialogue with it; however, on the other hand, we can have a more silent, “poste restante” dialogue with it. Namely, our primordial subjectivity sends us messages via our thoughts, dreams, and anxiety, and we can reply by modifying our behavior and actions, after which we can, much like Ervin Yalom did in his fascinating novels, shout (to deaf ears): “How'd I do, How'd I do?”
The older we get, the more we realize how little we are in control of our thoughts. As Nietzsche put it: “A thought comes when ‘it’ wants, and not when ‘I’ want, so that it is a PERVERSION of the facts of the case to say that the subject ‘I’ is the condition of the predicate ‘think.’” Here, Descartes gets his share from Nietzsche, because for the latter, it was ultimately outside the boundaries to even dream about knowing oneself that well based on the fact of thinking. Nietzsche believed that we are “constantly thinking but do not know it,” admitting (in relation to Kant) that “we 'know' far too little to even be entitled to make that distinction [between the noumena as ‘a thing in itself’ and phenomena ‘as its appearance’].”
However, just as a remark, one should acknowledge that, in his day, Descartes was a brilliant scientist, mathematician, and philosopher, which made him immortal. One should take a long look in the mirror before criticizing him. Why can Nietzsche do it? Answer: because he is in the same intellectual universe, which hardly any of us can ever aspire to reach.
Be that as it may, we have to acknowledge that sort of force inside of us and oppose it when needed, making (at least for some, and to some degree) life a constant silent battle with that part of ourselves. However, we can overcome those thoughts—and, according to the practical reason of Kant, we must.
No matter what in the person’s life has led them to that situation, our behavior can be formed to resist internal maliciousness by the intervention of reason. When describing a man whose life has made him bitter and inclined to spread malicious lies, Kant states: “In the moment when he lies, it is entirely his fault; hence reason, regardless of all empirical conditions of the deed, is fully free, and this deed is to be attributed entirely to its failure to act,” or in other words, that “regardless of the entire course of life he has led up to that point, the agent could still have refrained from the lie.” Opposing the will and somewhat evil inclinations of our primordial subjectivity is also the basis of Kant’s moral philosophy.
Leaving aside the essence of the source of our thoughts, when it comes to the realization of those in our behavior, we should acknowledge that it is often easy to align with Pinker, who states that “good and evil are asymmetrical: there are more ways to harm people than to help them, and harmful acts can hurt them to a greater degree than virtuous acts can make them better off.” As we acknowledge that, we must be even more careful regarding our thoughts, acknowledging that we tend to lie to ourselves about their authority, thinking naively that our socially constructed ego is the one posting those.
When we acknowledge that our true subjectivity is influencing us, can we also presume that it is tickled by objects of the world? Lacan says that we surely can. If we ourselves can be in a silent and “slow” dialogue with our true subjectivity, it can well communicate with society, culture, and groups our subjective social self “somehow” wants to belong to. However, much of this communication can be completely out of the reach of our empirical self. That brings our journey to the borders of the influence of social ideology, which we shall cross in the later chapters. Right now, let us illustrate just a part of the dilemmas such communication creates with a story from Lacan.
Here Lacan is not targeting the mechanics of the unconscious; it is rather an essay on logic and the way we conceptualize our identity, influenced by our thoughts, titled Logical Time and the Assertion of Anticipated Certainty: A New Sophism.The outline of the story follows.
A prison warden summons three prisoners and proposes a game, the winner of which will be set free. He says: "I have five discs differing only in color: three white and two black. Without letting you know which I have chosen, I shall fasten one of them to each of you between your shoulders, outside your direct visual field." The prisoners need to figure out the color of the disc they are wearing. Each prisoner faces two others; the one who can tell the color of their disc, reach the warden first, and explain the logic of arriving at that conclusion is released.
Let us explore the possible situations. First, one can see others with black discs. Simple logic tells them they must have a white disc, and they can act on it. This Lacan referred to as the "Instance of the glance"—there is no need to think about the subjectivity of others; one can act on one's own subjectivity.
The situation gets more interesting when one sees a white and a black disc. That circumstance is referred to as the "time of understanding." One has to see how the other person with the white disc sees them. If the person with the white disc stands up, one can react because they know they are wearing a black disc. If the person with the white disc hesitates, one can conclude that their own disc is white.
The third situation is more challenging and is referred to as the "moment of concluding." One sees two white discs and knows their own disc could be either black or white. First, they can assume their disc is black. This means that each of the other two sees a white and a black disc and assumes that if someone has a black disc, they will react and leave. If that does not happen, both others can conclude they have white discs and wait. This means one can wait and watch others' reactions; if the others do not react, one can conclude that their own disc must be white.
The first situation refers to pure "subjectivity," the second to "inter-subjectivity," and the third to "trans-subjectivity." We can establish that these complex mental processes, which may be essential for our survival in a group, likely occur without our constant awareness. This could be a key aspect of our true subjectivity, particularly in situations where inter-subjectivity evolves into trans-subjectivity. Instead of solely considering how others perceive and think about us, we must also take into account how we are viewed by the "other of the other" through their perspective. This potentially unsettling insight may reveal the true answer to the question, "Who am I?" Although we might like to perceive ourselves as conscious masters and creators of our identity, the reality could be far more intricate—and herein lies the connection to the evolutionary truth.
The deeper implications of such games extend beyond individual subjectivity. When these games are played repeatedly, behaviors become internalized, often leading to the emergence of optimal solutions. For instance, three prisoners with white discs might walk out simultaneously, each providing the same correct explanation.
In the simplest terms, the influence from our primordial subjectivity is powerful and constant, also well beyond the limits of our conscious understanding. The best we can do is to acknowledge our deeper inclinations and fight their negative influence within our limited conscious capabilities.
Primordial Subjectivity and Evolutionary Survival
When considering evolution and survival, we must acknowledge that our understanding of human history predominantly focuses on the past ten thousand years. However, over two hundred thousand years and millions of generations before that remain largely unexplored—not to mention the millions of years that predate them. From an anthropological perspective, it is crucial to recognize that our core, primordial subjectivity evolved to master, preserve, and refine the mechanisms that ensure our survival as a species. The fact that we exist today as self-proclaimed rulers of the planet is no small feat.
It is possible that such "games" have played a role in nature for millions of years throughout our evolutionary history, contributing to our survival as a species. Scientists like Frans de Waal, Sarah F. Brosnan, Brian Hare, J. David Smith, Joan Silk, Tetsuro Matsuzawa, Lynne Isbell, and others have investigated similar mechanics in primates. Primates employ various behaviors, such as cooperation, food-sharing, helping, and teaching, to survive and establish and maintain their social status in the hierarchy. These behaviors involve direct interactions between group members and demonstrate competence and dominance to third parties who may be observing the behavior or are expected to learn about it. The specific ways these behaviors are performed—including their timing, frequency, and context—are significant.
In the long run, individual members can only survive if their behavior serves the group's interests. In this sense, games between individuals and within smaller groups serve as models of social interactions. Through these games, individuals learn social rules and norms, cooperation, competition, and conflict resolution. Over time, these games have become an inherent part of our biological wisdom, constituting the primordial component of our true subject.
That concept also brings us to our model of subjectivity presented in this book. There are four levels of subjectivity at which we analyze situations. "S0" marks the primordial level connected to the evolutionary truth. "S1" marks the subject we have created as our "true self." "S2" marks our persona as we wish others to see us, and "S3" refers to how others see us.
Our true subjectivity may be far more primordial than we realize. Our unconscious minds may be intimately connected to evolutionary truths, and our inherited biological wisdom may possess a specific structure crucial for survival.
Our very being could inherently include mechanisms of inter-subjectivity and trans-subjectivity. These mechanisms may serve as the foundational basis for social and cultural exchange, fostering the development of shared meaning and understanding. Our perception and experience of the world are significantly shaped by shared symbolic systems and cultural norms, and it is naive to believe that these can be reduced to the subjective experiences of individuals alone; rather, they represent a collectively created and maintained aspect of our consciousness.
In the simplest terms, our true subjectivity is a property of our primordial being, continuously evolving through self-reflection and heavily influenced by society and culture. It is shaped not only by the ideologies of our current times but also by the inherited biological wisdom that forms a part of our evolutionary legacy.
