Loyalty to Loss

Loyalty to Loss

There is a silent loyalty within suffering. 

One does not suffer in the abstract: there is always a point, a coordinate in space and time; a person, a moment, a rupture that becomes an axis. Suffering then appears as mourning, as repetition, as that strange incapacity to leave behind something that has already ended. If you look closely, there is something in you that not only remembers the loss, but holds it, with care, as if disturbing it were to tear away something from yourself.

A part of you remains fixed in it because it gives shape to the pain. Without that focus, the pain disperses and loses its contour. The person, the moment, the death, the failure, any event that has erupted and diverted the course of life, becomes an axis around which everything begins to organize. Memory returns there not as a choice, but as a point of reference from which identity takes its coordinates, and desire, even in its most silent form, begins to revolve around that same point.

Thought returns to the past attempting to reorganize it, to find a logic where there is none. For that which erupts and disorders a life (the Lacanian Real) does not allow itself to be reduced to a clear chain of causes. It simply happens. And from that moment on, existence begins to reorder itself around that impact, adapting to an absence that cannot be fully integrated.

In some cases, loyalty to loss is not formed around something you have lost, but through another person. You do not link yourself only with them, but also with what they lack. That absence is not a secondary detail: it organizes their way of being in the world, how they approach, how they need, how they withdraw. That is where you enter. You no longer occupy only an affective place, but a position in the face of that lack; the one who attempts to sustain something that, at its core, cannot be sustained.

With time, that stops being just a form of relationship and passes to define your place. Desire no longer directs itself solely toward the person, but toward what is lacking in them, and toward the position you occupy in the face of that lack. In Lacanian terms, it is not the object that is desired, but that which makes it desirable: and in this case, that is not in the person themselves, but in the lack that pierces them. Although that lack is not one's own, the subject incorporates it and begins to organize in relation to it. There, the knot is formed.

This is why movement becomes so difficult. What sustains the bond is not just love, nor memory, nor even the person themselves, but the position from which one exists in relation to that lack. Letting go of that fixation is not experienced as relief. It feels like betrayal, because it implies not only losing the other, but also losing the place from which one existed for them.

But there is an even more disorienting way of losing that place, and it is when there is no clear rupture but something more silent: the encounter with the absence of desire in the Other. Not being chosen, not being sustained, not being an object of desire but a function.

This is lived as a wound in the very position of the subject, because while the desire of the Other was assumed, it was possible to sustain a place, justify the posture, keep organizing around that lack. When that assumption falls, the loyalty to the lack feels like betrayal toward oneself.

Not only is the relationship lost. The point from which one existed for the Other is lost, and with it, the coherence of everything that was built around it.

And then the questions appear that refuse to be answered: What was all this for? Who am I when I stop occupying that place? They are not rhetorical questions. They are cuts that open a void. When the sense constructed around that position begins to dissolve, what emerges is not clarity but exposure; a formless exposure, without support.

The crisis then ceases to revolve around the loss and shifts toward identity. What is at stake is not only what has gone, but the way in which the subject existed in relation to that lack, the contour that this relationship gave to their own desire. And that question cannot be resolved easily. Even if that which is lacking were to return, the subject would tend to occupy the same place, to situate themselves again in the face of the lack from the same position. Freud called this repetition. Lacan radicalized it: it is not just returning to the same, but orbiting a void that was never fully named, a nucleus that insists precisely because it has not been integrated. And that insistence announces itself first in the body—the hand that seeks the phone, the dream that is interrupted, the chest that tightens without a clear reason—before turning into thought.

When something of that structure becomes legible, minimal but real displacements occur. It is not the recognition that transforms, but the instant in which the response no longer arrives with the same inevitability. Before the movement closes in on itself, a nearly imperceptible vacillation appears. The repetition persists, but it no longer finds the same subject.

Letting go of loyalty to loss does not imply forgetting or diminishing what was lived. It assumes something more demanding: allowing that which is missing to stop occupying the center from which experience was organized. That passage is not lived as resolution, but as disorganization. There where the urgency to fill the void used to arise, a space appears. And the space is uncomfortable, because there is no new form yet.

Transformation does not consist in finding a substitute, but in enduring the lack without rushing to fill it; remaining in the tension one instant longer, long enough for the wave to pass without dragging you away.

Freedom appears in that minimal gesture: the interval between the impulse and the act. Not denying the impulse, but sustaining it enough so that it stops imposing itself as an immediate response. 

While the need to respond to the lack of the other dominates, there is no encounter, only repetition. The encounter only becomes possible when one no longer responds from the haste of filling a void, but from a presence that does not need to prove anything.

If this text resonated with you, leave a like.