system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Understanding Lacan's object petit a and anxiety as 'lack of the lack'

Ok, so in trying to understand the ins and outs of Lacan I am going through a variety of texts, which tbh, just leave me more confused than when I started.   


So this is what my texts seem to be suggesting  

\- object a is formulated as 'lack incarnated' 

\- object a is 'the Real - the symbolic = more or less a fraction of the Real'

\- but this fraction of the Real is also the surplus which is jouissance.

**Question 1**: I have one text differentiating jouissance from desire, as the former goes 'beyond the pleasure principle' and I have one text stating that it is jouissance *cause desire*. If both right, how are these combined?  


Furthermore:

\- One text states that object a, by 'not being there' allows for fantasy to cover and secure the lack (driving desire)  
\- However, anxiety is mapped out as a 'too close proximity to the object cause of desire' (object a), which erases the necessary lack - thus hindering fantasy, hindering desire = anxiety (too close to the Real)  


**Question 2:** If object a is 'lack incarnated' - how does the 'too close proximity' to it cancel out the lack necessary for desire? Because the above reasoning seems to suggest that removing object a would cure anxiety, but object a cannot be removed from the equation, right?  


I feel like I am missing a vital step /component, but at this point, all texts are muddled and I can't detangle these questions on my own. Help is much appreciated!  


And this might be baby-level Lacan, but what I am trying to get at is how anxiety is 'the failure of the fantasy' (fantasy as a compass and organiser of meaning for the subject and the connection to the Other and the symbolic order etc.)
gpt
I think the main issue with those concepts is that the meaning will depend on the period of Lacan we are talking about. In fact, object a is different if it's object a, object (a), or object *a*

  
I would recommend to take a step back and first tell us why do you need to understand object a, so we can point to what text will answer better that particular issue.  


PS: Try to read Bruce Fink's translations, it tends to be much clearer than any other.