Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I didn't go back to re-read what I had wrote; maybe I completely missed the ball on expressing this idea. But the difference I would add is that I mean symbolic as in a domain of the symbolic whereas "Zizek's own logic" is merely his way of navigating that domain. I do not assume that the symbolic is the same for all, but rather that it is different for each, and that being trapped in the one's own logic is different than being trapped in the symbolic. Considering that people are able to learn, and add new concepts that they didn't previously had before; one doesn't have to be trapped in one's own logic even if by definition one is still stuck in the symbolic. An added twist is that Zizek is attempting to speak in the meta-language so he talks about this very subject matter all the while not transcending it. I think it is a sign of being trapped when one's conclusions are always spoken in the same terms no matter the subject matter. The criticisms that Deleuze and Guattari leveled on Lacan and other Kant-based transcendental idealisms (of which Zizek is included) is essentially this same critique, only of course , D&G were speaking about the "Oedipal triangle stamp" that was the only product of psychoanalysis instead of Zizek's particular blend of theory. I'm not sure if you would still agree or disagree, but I am open to discussion and look forward to any further thoughts you are willing to share.