The subject and annihilator

Rancière writes: “Do the themes of the end or the probably interminable death of the subject not live off the identification of any subjective schema with the archetypes of the subjectum or of the  substantia? Is this identification of the ‘subject’ with the wrong schema of presence (and thus with the presence of evil) not an only-too-convenient manner of getting rid of the question of the present, that is to say, eliminating the question of reason as well?” (After What, 249)  When I consider subjectivity, I think of its life before its death; that is, what was the subject before its death.  I think that Rancière (who produces disruptions and dis-ordering the dominant ways of the world) and all those like Jacques Derrida (The Ends of Man) who sees this indeterminable death of the subject are aiming at deconstruction of the world as it is known, or as it was known in modernity.  The subversive path is the route to accomplishment, but the end of the subject (as is seen in the Rancière quote above) eliminates reason as well.  David Hume said that reason is and always will be the slave of the passions.  The Buddha said that desire (of the subject [which is not]) leads to suffering or dissatisfaction.  In one tradition if the Buddha gets in one’s way to enlightenment she should kill him.  The West has somethings to learn from peaceful egalitarian culture in the East.  However, there is one act of protest that stands out among oppressed peoples is the self-immolation by the Vietnamese Buddhist monk.  This may seem brutal, but it assumes the absence of a self, soul, subject, in a tangible demonstrative way.  The subject in the West, though it is terminally ill and dying or indeed dead, is in no way as violently disruptive of the act of a monk engulf in flames.  I worry that all this talk about the subject deters from the real problem, which is the preservation of the or a person from being completely consumed in fear and devastation, with the likelihood of total scorching of subject (and/or body), for which Simone explains that the law of necessity protects us from.