There is an unknown Machine 1. You tinker with the buttons and discover that pressing the key A turned on the light B, but you know neither the purpose of this correlation nor its mechanism.

In this case you cannot say this:

That I pressed A is the reason why B turned on.

This is because you are unable to rationally/reasonably explain why and how A turns B on.

But you can say this:

That I pressed A is the cause that turned B on.

This is because you were able to demonstrate “A turns B on” by an experiment even though you cannot explain the mechanism. Lacan said the following [1]:

There is cause only in something that doesn’t work. (Seminar 11)
Il n’y a de cause que de ce qui cloche.

As long as you are tinkering with an unknown machine, A-B correlation can only have the status of a malfunction (of “something that doesn’t work”) and this is why you cannot call it a “reason”, you can only call it a “cause”.

Symptom, sinthome, objet petit a: All of these have the status of a “cause”. Only the Ego attempts to obtain the status of a “reason” but of course he/she/it also fails.

Now imagine that you tinkered with Machine 2 (more difficult than Machine 1) and were only able to obtain the following information:

You see that pressing either A₁ or A₂ occasionally turns B on.

In other words:
1) As in the previous case, you are still unable to answer why or how it happens.
2) This time you are also unable to establish a direct correlation between cause and effect.

In Machine 1 you could say “A-B correlation was demonstrated by an experiment” but in Machine 2 you cannot say “A₁-A₂-B correlation was demonstrated by an experiment”. Since there is ambiguity/uncertainty at play, you have to speak less clearly and say something like this: “our experiment signified such-and-such a correlation” (equivocation).

Since there is always such ambiguities in the words we use in language, a signifier is not a sign, it does not show, it does not demonstrate, it signifies [2]. Lacan emphasized the importance of equivocations and playing with ambiguity in analysis as follows:

In the end that is the only weapon we have against the symptom: equivocation. (Seminar 23)

(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] See “Neden = Reason, Sebep = Cause”, “Psikanaliz yolundan şaşan şeylerle ilgilenir” Jacques Lacan

[2] See “Signifier Neden Gösteren Değil İmleyen Olarak Çevrilmeli”