When I heard the professor talk about logical time, I was engrossed. My studies in evolutionary and developmental psychology were about chronological times. So the moment of seeing, the time of understanding and the moment of reasoning, the logical times, were new. It unconsciously did not fit into linear and measurable parameters.

Three logical times were used by J. Lacan to show how subjectivity works. The moment of seeing is a kind of interruption, rupture; something attracts the attention of the subject, who may or may not want to understand what is happening to him. The moment is “the present that suddenly takes on meaning, it is existence itself suddenly mobilized” (J. Beaufret).

A multidimensional crisis

The time of understanding is the deciphering of events, the passage in which what is unknown is worked out, what is known, concerning the timeless unconscious that systematically doubts what has arisen in that moment and what will be resolved in that moment. to conclude, like anticipated certainty.

Do the three logical times maneuver political culture? Because what are we if not a conglomerate of subjects? But do politicians and citizens want to understand the events and conclude new proposals? Time for understanding requires discussions and exchanges, for which democracy is vital.

Ecuador 2025-2030

We have been hearing about the IESS crisis for a long time, and in order to understand it, the Reform Commission was formed, which ended up proposing solutions. Pablo Lucio Paredes claimed, in interviews and in EL UNIVERS, that in four or five years the progressive bankruptcy of the pension system will begin, which is why he suggests that constitutionalists review the prepared text, discuss it on a large scale and present the draft law to the National Assembly. And I think this is an example where knowledge that is not known and that is known takes on a different meaning because it involves us (pensioners or contributors); you begin to understand the evidence that must mobilize action to make a conclusion.

If a “political we” is not formed that will decide, after a democratic discussion, we are in serious danger…

The second case is the situation of SNAI (National Service for Comprehensive Care of Adults Deprived of Liberty and Juvenile Offenders): riots, murders, escapes, threats, controls, seizures, transfer of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. A criminal system that does not change and repeats itself as a subject of the unconscious and its forced repetition (S. Freud). And here there is no call for a civil forum to understand what is happening and conclude with state policy. What are the security plans? Drug trafficking, prison management, judicial reform, police equipment and FF. AA., border, customs and port surveillance, intelligence.

On October 15, we will have a moral obligation to choose who we will vote for. But first we need to understand what we are seeing and experiencing in relation to these crises. If a ‘political we’ is not formed to decide, after a democratic discussion, we face a serious danger: “The greater the power, the quieter it works. Power happens without mentioning itself out loud” (BC Han).

Or do we still not know that we know? (OR)