Perverse adherence to the letter of the law

1. Does "rigidly" in the following context imply "approximately"?

2. Does "by a perverse adherence to the letter of the law" mean "in an apparent and superficial manner"?

Context:

In order to understand this further, we need to make the distinction between instinct and the Freudian drive, which is crucial to thinking beyond the pleasure principle. The ‘breast’ satisfies the infant’s hunger, thereby satisfying the instinct, but this external object also introduces a pleasurable sensation derived from the contact between mouth and breast. The infant wants to repeat this sensation, so the next time it feels hungry Freud says it hallucinates the breast. This experience is both pleasurable and frustrating, as the infant is attempting to achieve satisfaction by means of fantasy. The real breast is no longer enough to satisfy him, a gap having opened up between objects of need, which satisfy instincts, and objects of desire, around which the drives circulate, propelling the human subject to seek out objects which will always generate some degree of unpleasure due to the inherent gap between need and desire. But this unpleasure paradoxically satisfies the drives at an unconscious level. It is almost as if the ego were at the behest of agents beyond its control that seek to unsettle it at every turn. To stabilise the drives, the subject might position the object rigidly in place by a perverse adherence to the letter of the law, which aims to close the gap between need and desire, making them synonymous with one another. This is the root of sadism. On the other hand, the subject, turning itself into an object upon whose body the de-fusion of the instincts is enacted or performed, uses an attachment to fragmentation and decomposition to create an identity that enjoys suffering, deriving its pleasure from the repetition of unpleasure. How does this relate to art?