Before I start, I wish to state that my mathematics is poor as is my Lacanian reading, so please bear with my exposition. (I welcome your Q & A!)
I was looking up descriptions of Lacan's formulae of sexuation when I came across an interesting wiki entry on a Lacanian encyclopedia:
http://nosubject.com/Formulas_of_Sexuation
The entry claims that Lacan based his formulae on Aristotelian logic, according to which propositions are categorised into four classes:
1. Universal affirmative
2. Universal negative
3. Particular affirmative
4. Particular negative
THIS MARKS THE POINT FROM WHERE I EDITED MY POST - notes to help me more than anyone else...
According to the author, modern logic requires that the universal affirmative necessitates the existence of a particular negative. This particular negative correlates to the exception to the Phallic function which is described by the first male formula, in the top left of the table. There exists an exception on the female side of the table (in the first and second female formulae), which the wiki defines in terms of phallic jouissance: not all of the woman's jouissance is phallic jouissance. The jouissance which exists outside of the symbolic order, i.e. language, is an exception.
The exception as a general concept is a thing that is unknown. In Lacan, according to the wiki source, there is 'at least one exception'. There can be numerous exceptions then. And indeed, it is only in enumeration that the exception is acknowledged: I suggest that this is because it is unknown, even unpredictable; a mystery, how could its potential wealth of 'qualities' be accommodated? So, all that can be said in the present moment is 'there has to be at least one exception'.
I take the liberty of interpreting (because I sure do not understand!) the exception as the metaphor for those things or those beings which are not The One i.e. The Man. (Although this is a gross misinterpretation of Lacan such that I ought to relinquish any reference to his ideas. But I wish to move out from Lacan and use his formulae as an example of the problems inherent in any human symbolic Law - the inherent failure of them).
Following this, I regret that it seems impossible to define a continuum of exceptions, which would mean that the exceptions are not merely accounted for, literally. It seems as if the very logic used to describe the exception is part of the problem. Or, this is the melancholy of language.
I focus then on the exception.
An image came to mind some time before I thought about the above, of a bird's eye view camera Point-Of-View looking down upon the backs of four dancers arranged in a circle where their heads meet in the centre, like a flower. I will post my sketches after this post. Do you know a playground game of fortune, where you fold paper (which has various answers written on it according to rules of the game) such that you need to use both your hands to manipulate the paper, like a puppeted paper flower? I had a memory of this form when I thought of the configuration of the four dancers. I found examples of it for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_fortune_teller
http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/fortune_teller.htm
Well, the ideas of chance and fortune associated with this game and to some extent, with the concept of the exception, influenced my idea for a performance. See the sketch I suppose.. !
The four dancers represent the four predicates of Aristotelian logic and thus also Lacan's formulae (although he goes against the rules of formal logic in creating the 'not-all', according to the wiki author above). Together in formation they create a circular figure, which is the emergent quality (of systems theory). The emergent quality is, until it comes into being and becomes part of a system, unpredictable, indistinguishable, unquantifiable: just like the exception.
The dancers move around in a circle: one revolution, at which point one actor lifts its head so that from the camera's POV, we see a Greek-style comedy mask. The actor lowers its head, and the group dance one more revolution. Each actor raises its head once. Then there is one more revolution, and then a costume change: Underneath the costume is like a jigsaw in that each actor comprises one part of the image printed over their backs. They have no masks on now either. I thought that the costume underneath could be all black if the first costume is all white or vice versa.
I also thought that it could be interesting to see the actors/dancers at the beginning of the film in the C & A (!) Lacanian-Yamamotoan dresses. One actor seen face on in full-size wearing the dress, the other three standing directly behind so we cannot at first detect them. Then they move out and form the configuration necessary to begin the revolution(s) I describe above...
I am thinking overall, or perhaps feeling is more apt, of the tragedy of challenge and defiance which I wish to approach as graceful tragicomedy instead. This feeling was stimulated by contemplating the idea of refusing to exploit the revelation of knowledge and the metaphorical device of Hikinuku to explore this.
(SH)
NjCbg!mk~%24(KGrHqEOKisEwO-KRqMWBMMhqHm2Tw~~_3.jpeg)
25BfgCWk~%24(KGrHqV,!jkEw41dobfmBMPP0Y5W-w~~_3.jpeg)