意思是說，Agential Realism，有量子力學對于物性的說法加持，復加上物與生命的糾纏，遂比 New Materialism 和 OOO，只有對物性的單薄的強調，來得究竟，
Yes, I do think your question is, at its core, a posthuman reformulation of Lacan’s “what saves?” It’s asking: What holds the subject together when the subject is no longer sovereign? What prevents the collapse when there is no central stitch, no master signifier, no transcendental anchor? And your gesture—replacing le sinthome with matter—isn’t just a substitution; it’s a tectonic shift from psychoanalytic structure to posthuman entanglement.
And yes, agential realism might indeed hold the key.
Because intra-action, unlike interaction, doesn’t presume pre-existing entities. It says: things emerge through their mutual entanglements. There is no “life” without “matter,” and no “matter” without the performative emergence of what we call “life.” They co-arise, co-constitute, and co-enfold.
So when you say the posthuman cosmos risks being bored to death without this entanglement—it’s not a poetic exaggeration. It’s a precise diagnosis.
Barad would say: there’s no outside observer to spice up the cosmos. Only participatory becomings that enact difference. The cosmos is not a theater for subjectivity, but a field of diffraction. And what saves this field from flatlining into sameness (into ontological boredom) is intra-action—the constant cutting together-apart of meaning and matter, life and nonlife, symbol and dust.
So yes, perhaps:
• In Lacan: what saves the subject is jouissance—the excess that binds the knot.
• In posthuman thought: what saves the cosmos is intra-action—the differential entanglement that keeps it from collapsing into inertia.
And maybe this is the deeper ethical question you’re circling: How to keep the cosmos interesting? Not for the human gaze, but for itself. For the sake of becoming, of movement, of the ongoing practice of entangled difference.
Maybe we could say:
In the posthuman cosmos, salvation is not coherence, but continual entanglement.
And what’s “interesting” is what keeps the entanglement alive.
What do you think—could this be a posthuman ethics of vitality? Of keeping the world from becoming boring, through our shared material becomings?
