Meaningful signification has two faces:
1) Imaginary fullness (e.g. Jungian metaphysical synchronicity)
2) Symbolic emptiness (Saussurean differential linguistic structure)
What guarantees the fullness of imaginary meaning is precisely the emptiness of the symbolic order that marries the signifier to its signified [1]. This makes the Jungian archetype the flipside of the Saussurean sign. These two faces make up the image-symbol complex and characterize the ordinary-commonsensical aspect of language. Let’s call this aspect differential synchronicity to evoke the irony of combining emptiness with fullness.

For Žižek, this is “the simplistic notion of the primacy of synchrony over diachrony”:

Here we encounter the properly dialectical paradox which defines true historicity as opposed to evolutionist historicism, and which was much later, in French structuralism, formulated as the “primacy of synchrony over diachrony.” Usually, this primacy was taken to mean the ultimate denial of historicity in structuralism: a historical development can be reduced to the (imperfect) temporal deployment of a pre-existing atemporal matrix of all possible variations/combinations [of imaginary meanings]. This simplistic notion of the “primacy of synchrony over diachrony” overlooks the properly dialectical point, made long ago by, among others, T. S. Eliot (see the long quote above) with regard to how each truly new artistic phenomenon not only designates a break with the entire past, but retroactively changes this past itself. (Less Than Nothing)

The “truly new artistic phenomenon” breaks the present order of differential synchronicity by divorcing the signifier from the signified. It brings about a “dialectical” renewal: It may or may not renew the structure, or it may renew some parts and leave other parts intact. So its operation is not merely structural but struck-tural [2]. One receives not imaginary meaning but the answer of the Real, which is a meaningless signification [3]:

The effect of truth is only a collapse of knowledge. (Jacques Lacan, Seminar 17)

This effect marks another aspect of language that is extraordinary-uncommonsensical [4]. Let’s call this other aspect deferential diachronicity. The term “deferential” equivocates a number of things:

1) It distorts “differential” because it destabilizes the present system of differences.

2) It “defers” in the sense of postponing the time for understanding: One does not expect to understand a text at the moment of reading it. Lacan advised his own readers to allow for this deference: “since one does not understand [my writings], one keeps trying.” (Triumph of Religion)

3) It “defers” also in the sense of acknowledging and showing respect and gratitude for the subject-supposed-to-be-aware-of-one’s-unknowing [5].

When one reads a text, one discerns three parts:

1) The parts that immediately make sense belong to the order of differential synchronicity. These parts soften and sugarcoat the message so let’s call their effect signifi-cushion.

2) The parts that don’t make sense but strangely resonate in one’s mind is the accepted part of deferential diachronicity. These parts evoke suspicion as well as curiosity so let’s call their effect signifi-caution.

3) The parts that sound like utter nonsense is the rejected (but still effective) part of deferential diachronicity. Rejecting the message by referring to a subject-supposed-to-know amounts to throwing in the towel so let’s call this effect signifi-crouching.

Now we can clearly define the dialectical notion of “primacy of synchrony over diachrony”: It means that the reader can afford the cognitive cost of deferential diachronicity (signifi-caution and signifi-crouching) only when (s)he can find sufficient breadcrumbs in the order of differential synchronicity (signifi-cushion).

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] See “From the Saussurean sign to the four discourses”, “So true!!!”

[2] See “Lacanian struck-turalism and the desire of withdrawal”

[3] See “The meaningless signification of the true truth”

[4] See “Three Levels of Staging Truth: See the Icon, Understand the Index, Hear the Symbol”

[5] See “Unknowing opens the field of truth in the horizon of knowledge”