Psychic reality
The concept of "Psychic reality" could be interpreted as reality perceived through a psyche, the human psyche. The construct, which was created by the mind, is a representation of the actual reality, the actual reality which is innately inaccessible because essentially, we can only access the representation of reality, which is represented via our minds. But, the particularly interesting thing is that our minds, our psyches, provide us with different models of reality. Even though we, humans, live on the same planet, we do have different models of reality that are the interpretations of the actual reality, which is not accessible. The things that we see, are what our biology provides us with - you see the outside world with your eyes, while to a blind person, there is no "outside", essentially, outside exists as a non-representative, if the person was born blind, they don't have the actual construct of "how to know how does the outside reality look like", while you, the one which is not blind, do have the representation of the "outside" reality, a representation which is a 24/7 translation of outside reality via "eyes" and "brain". Well then, essentially, it is the little man, living inside of "someone's" head, looking at the world through the eyes, that little man within someone's head is consciousness itself, the agent that appears in your head.
The interesting point is that different agents have different reasons for seeing reality differently. People who suffer from certain types of psychic conditions can see delusions, hallucinations, and hear voices, but if the analyst investigates the matter, they can find a rational way to understand why these things are happening. The analyst's understanding would be classed not as understanding, which places a judgment, such as "He or she is suffering from schizophrenia, give them the medication", but the essence of analytic understanding would be to ask the question, "What is the logic behind it? Why is this person seeing things that way? Why this type of delusion and not the other type of delusion? Why a delusion and not a voice? Why a voice, which appeared as a separate entity within the mind and not a delusion? Why a conspiracy theory, rather than accepting of not knowing? Why paranoia?
Analysts position in such a case would be in relation to the question - Why does the patients psychic reality is portraying that type of picture to the patient? Analysts desire to know and their particular interest in the mind and the constructs that it produces would be the engine that is leading towards a solution, if a solution is possible.
The mind of the patient or the analysand is already solving the problem; the scenario which is presented to the analyst, most likely, is a solution, already. A solution, which the mind is performing, in order to "make sense" out of what essentially, doesn't make sense. The solution is, firstly, unconscious, and if there is a way to lead the person back into reality out of their fantasy via discursive interaction, then we have a solution.
Even more interesting are solutions that are partially or fully conscious, ways of seeing the world that do not align with the general consensus.
So, by using the "desire" of the analyst, the particular interest in the constructs of the mind, let's think about the theories that go against the general consensus. Why would "Flat Earth" theory, make sense, psychically?
​
Why is the "Flat Earth-Dome theory" a perfect reflection of the phallocentrically "particularising" structure of fantasy?
​
​
The lens of phallocentricity, which would mean a lens of the particular, the lens which concretises meaning and provides clear coordinates to things, gives universality its name and place "A Dome", a structure which encompasses meaning, while on the contrary, the other side of it would be to give universality and infinite space, as today's day and age science is telling us, that the universe is expanding and growing and we are a spec of dust within the infinite universe. But, because we are stuck in language, which has to signify some sort of "meaning" for it to be meaningful, infinity in itself doesn't mean anything, because we don't know what infinity looks like and also "we don't know what a woman wants" because she, herself, doesn't know that herself, she is the embodiment of "universality" a mystery to herself, as much as infinity is a mystery to us "humans", "sexuated" beings possesed by language...
So, the fantasmatic filter of the particular, of the phallic, concretises infinity within the finite, within the understandable and comprehensible, which gives infinity a "form", which is the "Dome". A clear line between signifier and signified, a clear line, between "what is possible" and "what is impossible", a clear boundary, within the realm of the particular, and the realm of the universal. If "I" am using a correct model of the flat earth, which is covered with the dome structure, the dome itself (in the theory known to me) is made of "water", which means we live in a structure which is surrounded by some sort of "liquid" or "water". Once again, is it not, a most beautiful metaphor for the particularisation of the universal, not only that we are trapped within the "placenta" like structure, the unpenetrable "Dome", the "Dome" itself might be infinite, for as far as we know, because we don't know what is going on behind it, or within it, if it is made from some sort of liquid and starts are a "fluid reflections of the seeds of the particular within the field of the universal", the "Dome-Universality is pregnant with the shinning pieces of the particularity, shinning through the waters of universality".
Fantasmatically, structurally, phallocentricaly, meaningfully and clearly, within the boundaries of the particular, within the boundaries of the concretised, "Dome and Flat Earth" makes sense. Instead of being lots within the realm of the unknown "universality", we acquire a place, through particularity, through phallocentric fantasy structure, it gives us a place "A flat, rational place, a place which might be middle of the universe", "WE" are the centre of attention, we are the main character in the movie, we are the "ONE", the particular, covered with the "Dome" of universality, protected with an impenetrable placenta of the universe. Once we acquire a place on the hard surface which is not "flying through space" but is "standing concretely as the Phallus of the universe", intact and ready, surrounded by the "waters above and waters below", like a child which is still in his mother's womb, surrounded by the water of "protection" the "elixir of life".
​
Explore my "jouissance", she (universality itself) says: I am a mystery to myself, my enjoyment is a mystery, my orgasm is undefinable, it is open for "interpretation", the way my vagina is and every interpretation is equal to penetration, my femininity is infinite, I am undefinable - she says.
​
I don't want to be lost in infinite space without knowing what to do or where to go; I want to know! And I want to know now! I don't want to be lost in infinity without clear directions, an undefinable spaces aren't my type of thing, I like clear boundaries and clear structures of meaning. Your jouissance is a mystery to me and only through particularising it, I can make sense of it - he says.
​
Psychotically structured fantasy, a fantasy which is not based and defined by the "signifier", by the "grounding of concreteness and meaning", does not have to live within the "Domed" structure, it can imagine infinity, because, essentially, it is an expression of infinity. While neurotically structured fantasy, is based on the signifier, it is based on the grounding and meaning, based on repression, it needs clear boundaries and walls, definable walls, the container for its repressive existence. So, while psychotically structured subjectivity is fantasising about infinity and imagining distant planets and a posiblity to live on Mars or other planets, neurotically structured subjectivity is shouting "wait a minute, forget about space, there is no space, there is only concrete, flat earth, a parituclar field, we are stuck here, we cannot leave, we are opressed by the dome of universality and we need to build structures within the opression of universality until we find a plan how to leave this place". But, the funniest thing is that "humanity" could be classed as "particularity" within the realm of universality, which means that the "mother universe - universality itself" is trying to run away from itself, through the creatures of particularity, which is "us" "human beings", within the structurality of "dome" structure, universality is trying to inflate itself through particularity and run away from itself, to explode within itself but, because language itself is the particularisation which appeared within the realm of the universal, the mother universe, cannot inflate a baloon within herself more than her body, seen through the fantasy of the particular, would allow her to do so. If, the mother universe, sees herself, through her own self, she is infinite and undefinable but, the minute she includes the particular "the phallus" within the fantasy of creation, she (the universe) acquires limits because once language is in operation, everything becomes particularised, with clear limits and boundaries.
To stretch this thought experiment even further, LGBTQ+ identity field is already a field which is particularised, in order to create definable meanings of identity, it is equivalent to a father who says to his children - Right, my children, I want all of you to be able to feel good and to be able to enjoy within the Garden that I created you in, but, we need to "name things", we need to "name all of you", because my wife's enjoyment is already undefinable, universality herself doesn't really know "what she wants", so, if we will stay here as an "absolutely undefinable bunch, which doesn't want to submit to any rules of logic, it will be a disaster". So, the Father (God), gives names to things, such as language, the field which provides differentiation, the Father "sets limits to enjoyment", it sets boundaries and rules, which allows existence itself to have clear definitions, but, because existence itself is "universality", and it is, essentially, undefinable, the Father cannot follow the Mothers (universalities) game, it (The Father) has to end up being a tyrant which disciplines and sets clear boundaries within the realm of logic.
Confrontation with femininity
​
Because "the particular" is the product of "universality", because it (particular) exists within the "universal" field of "femininity", it has to confront its essence, which means that "masculinity" sooner or later, has to confront the inner "lack", the lack which is the "hole of the Real", a hole through which "the particular" was born. But, the birth of the particular leaves a residue, which is "lack", lack which from the perspective of the "masculine" is "lack and infinity", while from the perspective of "femininity - the universal" it is existence itself, the infinite possibility for feeling and emotion. The process of inflation and rebellion has its limits, the particular, rebelling against the field of universality itself, is fighting a fight that "he" cannot win and, paradoxically, if the particular "gives up the fight" it turns into universal and the concreteness of "particularisation of meaning" turns into pure fluidity.
Well then, what does "it" (confrontation with femininity) have to do with "psychic reality"? Psychically, whatever is "particularised" can perceive whatever is "universalised" as "evil". Particularised mind, perceives reality through particularity, through the "concrete and knowable", logically comprehensible and "close to the heart", a familiar, the heart of logic, the opposition to the "unknown". On the contrary, the universalised mind, perceives reality through the "unknown", through an undefinable and infinite, through the ultimate "inclusion of all", which goes against the particularised mind.
In the Garden of Eden, Eve was the naughty one, the one who "fell away from the Law" by eating the fruit of knowledge, "she" was the representation of "universality", the desire to know more than the "Law". Men, as representatives of the "Law", perceive things that are feminine and not fully known, as demonic, while the things of the "Law", things that are known and visible, the way Phallic enjoyment is, known and visible, obvious, these things, things of the law are classed as divine and Godly.
The infinite fight between Gods and Demons as a representation of psychic reality, is the fight, between the universal and the particular, the fight of cutting and destroying, inflating and deflating. World wars, essentially, are the divine fights between the two principles, between femininity and masculinity, between the universally submissive and inclusive and particularly differentiated, concrete and non-inclusive, or inclusive with clear limits. Confrontation with the feminine, psychically, is the acceptance of the unknown part of the mind, essentially, confrontation with the unconscious, the place of lack.