Now you mention the objet petit a, FC. And if I understand the concept right, that is as partial object, it may apply, in a way that fuses with Jouissance, in the movie Cloverfield. If you look at how the invading beast is portrayed throughout most of the movie, you might note that it is presented in a series of partial views or (once again: if I understand the concept right) objet petit a(s). And it seems as if the novelty and effectiveness of it lies in the phantasmic support of the imagination in that by having to fill in the rest, we get the effect of a monster unlike any we’ve experienced in movie history: a subtle amorphous form that seems to reach into the subconscious and is reminiscent of the forms seen in Dali paintings, but with the same depth, intensity, and lightness of touch seen in Francis Bacon’s work.
The thing to note here is how that effect is lost at the end when we are shown the creature face to face. And because of that, it feels like a fudge: that which detracts from the total effect of a work of art. And it becomes evident why this happened if you listen to the director’s commentary to the movie in which he points out that he felt certain external (mainstream) pressures to add the scene. And, in hindsight, I now realize that he might have done better to show the perspective of the camera panning up to capture the objet petit a of the creatures teeth rushing towards it. But that is just a stumble in an otherwise excellent performance.
The main thing to note, though, is that we find here the same dynamic at work as that of Ballard when he broke to flashbacks of the boy riding the horse on that beach: the need to cross a threshold that ultimately proves unsatisfying: Jouissance: the unbearable: that which satisfies by never truly satisfying.
*
“ I had to absolutely know that I exist, be perfectly certain of what it is that exists and that I call I, the world, and all things in between.
But as much as I give Nietzsche the credit for bringing about the conditions of my philosophy I was actually in a Lacan/Zizek mode of thought at the point where it dawned on me. I think that is because their minds disclose the structure of the Real - i.e. the field of non-value, to the background of which everything is known.”
First of all: sorry about the experience that led to this revelation. I can only guess that what was gained was little compensation for what was lost.
That said, the desire to know that one exists or that reality exists may be an expression of the push/pull tension between presence and absence: a form of Jouissance. In fact, there may be a kind of longing intertwined in your situation reminiscent of that of Orpheus when he lost Eurydice. What concerns me is this part:
“I think that is because their minds disclose the structure of the Real - i.e. the field of non-value, to the background of which everything is known.”
What we have to consider here is the relationship between Lacan’s triad of the Imaginary, the Symbolic (or the symbolic order), and the Real. The Imaginary (a world of pure images) is what we start with before we have a language to put it into words. The Symbolic Order is that which we enter as we become more adapt with the various semiotic systems we are faced with. And the Real is that which has yet to be absorbed into the Symbolic Order: the subtleties and complexities that elude being put into words. And living in a world in which the only thing that seems fixed is the symbolic order, where we have to fumble our way through it, we run the risk of falling into one of 2 pitfalls that lie on both sides of the symbolic: the psychotic (on the imaginary side) in which we create our own semiotic bubble with its own system of rules; or the sociopathic in which we deal with the Real by acting as if it is perfectly absorbed into the symbolic order thereby giving us the illusion of power over the symbolic order: the authoritarian reaction to the elusiveness of the Real.