Here are some statements:

S1) Don’t undermine your desire.
S2) Just stick to your desire and never mind the others’ desire.
S3) Man’s desire is the desire of the other.
S4) Don’t undermine the others’ desire.

S1 is a true Lacanian maxim. Now commonsense would suggest S1 ⇒ S2 but this does not actually hold, because S3 is also a true Lacanian maxim, which introduces a double implication: S3 ⇒ (S1 ⇔ S4). This logical expression translates as follows: If I cannot distinguish my desire from that of the other, I am not permitted to undermine either mine or theirs. This simple inference underlies the basic lesson about envy and gratitude:

S5) Envious attacks against the other also hurts yourself.
S6) Showing gratitude for the other also helps yourself.

One can learn this lesson either in the religious way, or in the (psycho)analytic way: In religion, S1 and S4 (as thesis and antithesis) are synthesized under the idea of God. In contrast, analysis interprets the dialectic of the one and the other in terms of fantasy:

S7) There is but one desire: The will of God.
S8) Desire inhabits the matrix of fantasy.

S7 is the religious way and S8 is the analytic way. Notice that when religion disavows the other, it switches the term and reduces “desire” to “will”. From the analytic perspective (S8) one can also observe that the religious matrix (S7) is not exclusive to religion; it’s also operative in the construction of personal egos and commodities in the capitalist market:

S9) There is but one desire that matters to me: My own intentions and wishes.
S10) There is but one desire that matters to the others: The exchange-values in the market.

The religious aspect of capitalism isolates desire either in the “one = ego” (S9) or in the “other = commodity” (S10) and neglects their dialectic. Analysis reveals that these two aspects are not isolated; the same religious matrix (S7) underlies both. This is why the maxim of Lacanian atheism says “God is unconscious” instead of “God does not exist”. The idea of God is present in both religion and analysis. The difference concerns one’s stance towards the idea; one either disavows (religious way) or acknowledges (analytic way) the dialectic of envy and gratitude:

S11) I am grateful although I’m envious: I am good because I love-to-hate the evil.
S12) I am grateful because I’m envious: I hate-to-love the good which is also evil.

Religion is defined by the prohibition of being envious of God, which automatically leads to S11. The religious God represses (or disavows) the envy (for itself as well as in itself) which then returns under the guise of Satan (or the abuse of faith) as the envious side of God, just like the “bad mother” in Kleinian psychoanalysis. Analysis, in contrast, acknowledges not only the “envy for God” (for-itself) but also the “envy of God” (in-itself) and links both to gratefulness through the dialectic of the one and the other, which automatically leads to S12. The analytic God is indistinguishable from Satan; this is the essence of “Kant avec Sade” in Lacan [1].

(Turkish)

Işık Barış Fidaner is a computer scientist with a PhD from Boğaziçi University, İstanbul. Admin of Yersiz Şeyler, Editor of Žižekian Analysis, Curator of Görce Writings. Twitter: @BarisFidaner

Notes:

[1] About loving-to-hate vs. hating-to-love: “Three Lacanian True Choices”, “Around the Borromean Knot”, “Just Revenge Against The Superego”