a topology of communication is not merely about the surface of words and the language it inhabits.
but rather it also includes a tertiary view, a parallax view, if you will. in using the topological theory within topology known as the ‘token ring’ theory, we can better appproach language as an object which imposes our subjectivity deeper into a state of static reality. “If a Token Ring protocol is used in a star or ring topology, the signal travels in only one direction, carried by a so-called token from node to node.”
what we have to assume here is that language is itself intersubjective, so when we approach language as an object, we are imposing something not true of language itself, so when we speak of language in this sense, we speak of something ‘other’ than language. but when we speak of such an ‘other’, we actually create this other as a virtual object that stands-in for that which imposes an identity upon us. so what we are met with when we speak is not just an embedded subjectivity, but also an embedded identity lost in the virtual. (for example: when people speak of god it is not that they speak of god, but rather they speak of themselves under god, subjected to a divine invisible being, but really in essence what is being spoken of is that this ‘big other’ (god) imposes the very idea of false-subjectivity upon one’s own subjectivity, hence why so many are lost and found in subjectivity – is this not the notion of the prodigal son? someone who loses their identity, discovers it outside of community, then re-enters a new identity, but this time dual-layered and embedded into a narrative that he initially lost. it is the hope for identity that most find meaning in. but identity is itself a subject of a subject, it is not an object that imposes itself upon something, but rather is itself imposed upon by something bigger, the narrative itself. the narrative imposes a third level to the identity, a virtual/symbolic one. so when we speak of subjectivity, we can no longer speak of it as something so easily gained or lost, but rather something that is itself imposed upon us by those things we hold so dear. take (for example) the woman who has found herself in the role of being a mother, that is not simply one identity that we speak of, but rather, she also has her initial symbolic (world) identity that she enters into at birth and is speken to her by the other’s in her life; but the one we never consider is the pre-symbolic self – the self in the Real. Which for most can never be obtained; unless a full loss of ego can be maintained.)
so when we speak of communication, we speak of the tongue, the sounds, and the connectivity from the idea of the word, to the word, to the promise of an idea, then to that word which then gives identity to an object, a subjectivity – once something is named, it loses its objective state. when someone names god, god becomes a subject. god becomes the subject of the speaker, i do not use subject in the sense of theme, but like a servant to king. the monarch in this example is language. we are subordinated to language. it inhabits a plurality of identities and houses them for us. each word, each concept is a new identity that implants deeper into a much more virtual self. in this sense, no one is ‘real’, (whomever speaks that is) – we are all virtual…(hence why zizek claims that the ‘virtual is the real’)…