In Iranian military service, there is a term called “na-hast” (“not-is”), meaning that the soldier is absent from the roll but the duration of his absence has not reached the point where he is considered absent; so he is “no” (the Persian negation)—but he is! I was thinking it might be a good example of the “speaking body” in this Lacanian discussion, which is practically na-hast/not-is. BTW, does the element of time have no effect on this ex-ist-ence of the “speaking body”?
In Iranian military service, there is a term called “na-hast” (“not-is”), meaning that the soldier is absent from the roll but the duration of his absence has not reached the point where he is considered absent; so he is “no” (the Persian negation)—but he is! I was thinking it might be a good example of the “speaking body” in this Lacanian discussion, which is practically na-hast/not-is. BTW, does the element of time have no effect on this ex-ist-ence of the “speaking body”?
Fascinating!