Your summarization of my argument in a logical sequence (numbered, no less) in itself functions as translation-out-of-language of which I spoke. (I truly believe, or truly, it is my opinion, that no argument or analysis worthy of serious contemplation can be expressed as a logical proof. ) The very idea of compressing multiple paragraphs into a mathematical formula refuses to accept language on its own terms, and misrepresents it in its attempted translation. Though clarity is the benevolent goal of this summary, its effect is gross misinterpretation.
The 'first premise' of my argument as you represent it ("The self is the only relevant subject of investigation.") misses the point i was trying to make. Instead I meant to say that Science uses a model of truth that operates by sidestepping the necessary relational uncertainty between self and world, positing truth firmly outside the self; in other words, Science's obsession with the specifics of physical reality establishes an authoritative form of certainty, consisting of purely physical or mechanical forms, effectively banishing the arts of language to the depraved state of speculation and poetics (the fall of humanitas.. as if banished from the Eden of Truth.. once again Science replacing hand of God?).
Science is obviously relevant, as in the case of an asteroid heading towards earth, as Zizek said in his movie, philosophy is not what is needed then. However, when speaking not of the banalities of engineering, namely, "the grand scheme of knowledge" (I'm not sure how else to put it), by which I mean knowledge that is its own end, non-utilitarian knowledge,.. I find Science's relevance here to be highly questionable.
The hyperbolic metaphor, that I hastily included, confuses the argument (as Ramsey correctly points out); this happened precisely because I am not a mathematician (Scientist), and I instead interpreted the graph in poetic terms (which does not mean bullshit, as I am trying to prove). y=0 would not be 'the truth' but rather 'a certain truth,' perhaps let's look at y-axis as 'world truth,' the physical truth that is the goal of science, and the x-axis as 'self-truth,' a truth based in ideas (very questionable categorizations here, but perhaps in a moment you will see the point I am trying to make). As science approaches a truth that can be found in the world (a scientific truth), it shoots of to infinity, away from the other possible truth, the 'self-truth,' by which I mean to truths that cannot be tested scientifically. It is important also that, while endlessly moving away from this language-truth, science never actually reaches its own, physical truth. You also notice by this model that the hyperbola functions identically in terms of the x-asis, which attests to the incomplete truth of ideas separated from the physical. The ideal form of knowledge then perhaps operates as a circle centered at the crossing of the axes.
There, you see, I have pulled the switcheroo, translating Science(math) back into language. did it work??
As for the point I was trying to get across, or, rather, that Lacan was trying to get across when I quoted him: your interpretation betrays something, perhaps a certain fear. What Lacan is suggesting is that the fanaticism of the middle ages operated from a passion that represents a seriousness and urgency concerning ideas and arguments, that, today, the imposed authority of Scientific truth makes impossible. Why do you interpret this passion immediately as murder and violence? The violence of this fanaticism stems more from the conservative mores of the time, and is not a necessary feature of the state of mind that Lacan promotes.
As for Proust, his writings represent for me a step towards the ideal, circular knowledge I mentioned above, a true and certain expression of a complete idea, a work whose value transcends the categorization of literature, presenting an analysis of the world of such devastating lucidity, which, for me, illustrates the fundamental irrelevance of Science.