Changes

The [[subject ]] of [[enunciation ]] is the "I" who speaks, the [[individual ]] doing the [[speaking]]; the subject of the [[enunciated ]] is the "I" of the [[sentence]]. "I" is not identical to itself - it is [[split ]] between the individual "I" (the subject of enunciation) and the [[grammatical ]] "I" (the [[subject of the enunciated]]). Although we may [[experience ]] [[them ]] as [[unified]], this is merely an [[Imaginary ]] [[illusion]], for the pronoun "I" is actually a [[substitute ]] for the "I" of the subject. It does not account for me in my [[full ]] specificity; it is, rather, a general term I share with everyone else. In [[order ]] to do so, my empirical [[reality ]] must be annihilated or, as [[Lacan ]] avers, "the [[symbol ]] manifests itself first of all as the [[murder ]] of the [[thing]]". The subject can only enter [[language ]] by negating the [[Real]], murdering or substituting the blood-and-sinew reality of [[self ]] for the [[concept ]] of self expressed in [[words]]. For Lacan and Žižek every [[word ]] is a gravestone, marking the [[absence ]] or corpse of [[the thing ]] it represents and standing in for it. It is partly in the light of this that Lacan is able to refashion [[Descartes]]' "I [[think]], therefore I am" as "I think where I am not, therefore I am where I think not". The "I think" here is the subject of the enunciated (the [[Symbolic ]] subject) whereas the "I am" is the subject of the enunciation ([[the Real ]] subject). What Lacan aims to disclose by rewriting the [[Cartesian ]] [[cogito ]] in this way is that the subject is irrevocably split, torn asunder by language