Where we really are and think or, the science of the real and (all other) metaphysics

Every matter of interpretation is a discourse of the unconscious. Hence any science which cannot asure a method of clear and distinct seeing - this, particularly, is mathemathics - is a projection of the scientist's symptom, and the effort of the passionate work injected in its investigations is the way to enjoy it. This is a perversion of the science of the real. As such, it is still a metaphysics. Not a speculation but an interpretation of a personal affect - as this very reasoning is this too... The real science however, in the Lacanian sense, which for that matter can be doubed Cartesian or even Platonic idealism of mathematisation, has nothing of the consciousness in it, that is, no affect which poses an obstacle to the knowledge of the real. Perhaps, it rather 'correspond' to Merleau-Ponty's idea of chiasm... The real strictly speaking, is the domain of the knowledge of the subject of the unconscious; knowing not to know, as Lacan put it. How are we then to (re)present it (what resist symbolisation), indeed anything of the world if this is the condition of knowledge - an endles signification chain? The Lacanian answer is: not representation (fails) but: mathematisation. From this point of view it is more likely that our marvelous computers actually resemble more of what is out there, the inductive method per se, than we ever can deduce from the interpretation of the experience (the affect) and observation (the misrecognition of the flip side, the blind spot).... However, both the experience and the observation works, WHERE WE THINK WE ARE (not....