The Gap Between the Eye and the Gaze

This is a good question that you've asked and I imagine it's one that other people have to. What I'm trying to suggest is that the object of the drive is always going to be an opening. And just identifying it with the gaze as a capacity to be watched is insufficient. It doesn't comport with the theory. The consistency of drive theory in LaCon is going to position the partial object, the little a that animates the scopic drive not in the gaze and not in the eye but in the differential relationship between them. Now please follow up because you've got a really good fish on the line here so to speak.I don't know if you muted yourself.