The subject in psychoanalysis is split, this is a basic assumption of the theory.
This split forms a perspective different from the one, which gives the “ego” absolute superiority as a representation of man by being able to sharply erasing the idea of sweeping identification of chair-role with a person. Here the question arises how can a man occupy two “chairs”, so to speak, between which there exists a clear opposition of interests, and claim that “there is nothing”? I am referring to a case of a person who is simultaneously holding a senior government position on the one hand and is being accused of criminal acts on the other.
Naturally, this man would do anything he possibly can, probably regardless of cost, to claim he is occupying neither chair, and that it is all part of personal persecution. If one turns to mathematical logic, in a sense such position perpetuates Leibnitz’s principal concerning the “identical to itself” in order to preserve Truth: Salva veritate. Therefore, a position which attempts to erase the afore mentioned conflict of interests, every moment and under all conditions, with no split, trying to present itself in alleged status of one alone with himself. It may be assumed that this sole individual, who is always “identical to himself’, seemingly matches the principle which explains the creation of the series of natural numbers. In this series, each of these is created with the addition of the 1, each time anew, but this is the arithmetic dimension. Logic, however, needed a further, revolutionary step vis-à-vis the question where has the primary one opening the series appeared from? In order to explain its emergence, it had to go precisely through the idea of “not identical to itself”‘, which in fact does not preserve the principle of salva veritate. This has enabled reaching the concept of zero, representing a concept which includes no object. In other words, one which represents an empty group, and then counting it as one. Frege’s theory. In this case, however, it is not about the conceptualization of non-existence but rather of omitting that which does exist, of erasing under the claim that this is a lie, a false charge.
This kind of conduct turns that which exists, the real, into a lie. Yet, one is not obliged to turn to mathematical logic, to such seeming sophistication, a thought-exercise, in order to expose this. It would suffice to follow the discourse of that man and to observe the degree of heinousness and abjection which speech can reach through defaming all the surrounding others for the sake of presenting the speaker himself as The compass of society, as “king”. This way, the courts, the attorneys, the police, the media, anyone who expresses a different opinion, becomes the enemy. In the past, such line of thought has already led to the assassination of a Prime Minister, who was compared with the ultimate enemy: Arafat or Hitler.
Israeli society is on the brink of the abyss, where freedom of speech is nearing its total obliteration, nearing pure racism toward, for example, part of the population whose skin color is different, or close to considering another nation inferior, second rate, who is not entitled to equal rights. As regarding rights, it has recently been decided, probably a solo decision of the “king”, to use digital means to detect and locate Corona patients. These are the very means used by the general security service in order to locate terrorists. This constitutes an invasion of civilians’ privacy, and a major violation of a basic democratic principle. Since the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, and its committees, who are supposed to oversee such decisions, are currently neutralized, such tyrannical decisions of the “king” are not being curbed..
The atmosphere is difficult, complex, especially after a third round of elections, which seems to have left the citizens at the same point, possibly facing yet another round. In addition, the Coronavirus, which reigns almost everywhere in the world, putting whole populations into quarantine, with panic naturally spreading. How in fact, don’t certain ideologies act as a virus of sorts? Like a virus against which there is no vaccine, and which can lead to murder.
Ideologies are worldviews, Freud has already shown us their organised character. They have no room for the subject, for split, for acceptance of the other. It is also interesting what use ideologies make of natural phenomena, science or states of emergency.