art has ceased to be the supreme need of the spirit’: even if excellent works are produced, ‘we bow the knee no longer’.2 This thesis of Hegel’s acquired new content with the rise of what he couldn’t forecast: the secular capitalist civilization which elevates scientific reason into the highest form of reason

http://ift.tt/2jSsoTi

[There is a] secret solidarity between: […] the replacement of politics proper by depoliticized ‘humanitarian’ operations (humanitarian protection of human and civil rights and aid to Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda,…) [and] the violent emergence of depoliticized ‘pure Evil’ in the guise of ‘excessive’ ethnic or religious fundamentalist violence. Zizek, “Carl Schmitt in the Age of Post-Politics” ‘postmodern racism’ emerges as the ultimate consequence…of the reduction of the state to a mere police-agent servicing the…needs of market forces ======== zizek on how the one becomes one in recognizing its split - Ihre Notiz bei Position 104 | Hinzugefügt am Montag, 16. November 2015 17:38:38 The thing to do is to distinguish between objects which are..desired..and the object..which functions as a ‘negative magnitude’..desired as the stand in for Nothingness. SLAVOJ ZIZEK Absolute Otherness’ is 'the subjct beyond subjectivization,’ beyond the 'big Oter’: 'the subject not bound by the symbolic pact and as such identical to the Other’s gaze’. The subject is the 'point of failure of every identification’ Absolute Otherness is 'epitomized by the Other’s gaze into camera’ by the villain in Hitchcock’s films Zizek says. ========== zizek on how the one becomes one in recognizing its split - Ihre Markierung bei Position 105-105 | Hinzugefügt am Montag, 16. November 2015 17:51:26 difference ========== zizek on how the one becomes one in recognizing its split - Ihre Notiz bei Position 105 | Hinzugefügt am Montag, 16. November 2015 17:52:37 Absolute Otherness is 'epitomized by the’ villain’s 'gaze into camera’ in Hitchcock’s films Zizek says. ========== zizek on how the one becomes one in recognizing its split - Ihre Notiz bei Position 105 | Hinzugefügt am Montag, 16. November 2015 18:16:43 By making us accomplices with the villaine, Hitchcock makes us experience the absolute Otherness of the unrerentable as such, in short, the experience of the object gaze, brought about by being looked at as viewes directly by the villain’s gaze to camera. Normally the chance to look someone directly into their eyes facilitates a deeper understanding ofwho they are. That we cannot fathom the villain in this way at all despite being given the opportunity to see into his eyes is what makes the unsymbolizability of wat goes on in the film even more traumatic. The place 'of the unrepresentable’ coincides with 'the viewer reduced to pure gaze’. Even from the seemingly allknowing and allseeing position of pure objective access to gazing from the nearest deepestseeing positions which one would normally never have access to is not giving insigts and symbolizations at all and this is why seeing the villain head on is traumatic. His gaze separates the viewer from the symbolic community and makes’ the viewer an accomplice, Zizek says ========== zizek on how the one becomes one in recognizing its split - Ihre Markierung bei Position 105-105 | Hinzugefügt am Montag, 16. November 2015 18:16:43 name ========== zizek on how the one becomes one in recognizing its split - Ihre Notiz bei Position 105 | Hinzugefügt am Montag, 16. November 2015 19:09:01 'Becase I think it is only’ a 'self-image I adopt in virtual space, I can be there much more truthful’, Zizek says. The void as core 'of our subjectivity’ is 'filled in by appearances,’ Zizek says. women often are more aware of the emptiness at the core of s was so much alone as a child that I enjoy too much being alone. Loving for me is a way to keep hiding from the rest of the world.†— Andre Vantino enjoy your symptom or as Oscar Wilde says, the way to get rid of a desire is to follow through with it and grant oneself small pleasures. Fantasies are desired differently than small pleasures. We avoid following our fantasies to the end of the fantasy because if we didn’t the emptiness of the fantasy would become too obvious. 'Through disregard for our gaze,’ something asserts its divine character’ even when not at all intending to 'hide anything from us’, Miran Bozovic writes. experienced as a simple formal framework for the coexistence of the multiplicity of ethnic, religious or life-style communities. Modernism in Reverse This gradual collapse—or, rather, loss of substance—of the ‘American dream’ bears witness to the unexpected reversal of the passage from primary to secondary identification described by Hegel: in our ‘postmodern’ societies, the ‘abstract’ institution of secondary identification is increasingly experienced as an external, purely formal frame that is not really binding, so that one is more and more looking for support in ‘primordial’, usually smaller (ethnic, religious) forms of identification. Even when these forms of identification are more ‘artificial’ than national identification—as is the case with the gay community—they are more ‘immediate’ in the sense of seizing the individual directly and overwhelmingly, in his specific ‘way of life’, Slavoj - Multiculturalism or the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism in contrast to the ‘nationalization of the ethnic’—the de-ethnicization, the ‘sublation’ (Aufhebung) of the ethnic into the national—we are now dealing with the ‘ethnicization of the national’, with a renewed search for (or reconstitution of) ‘ethnic roots’. Slavoj - Multiculturalism or the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own position of all positive content (the multiculturalist is not a direct racist, he doesn’t oppose to the Other the particular values of his own culture), but nonetheless retains this position as the privileged empty point of universality from which one is able to appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures—the multiculturalist respect for the Other’s specificity is the very form of asserting one’s own superiority. My father is a Schindler Jew by Les White If Schindler is an enigma, if his actions as he evolves from carpetbagger to savior cannot be explained - as many including Spielberg contend - why then does the film give reasons for the Nazis’ behavior? The Nazis are portrayed as alcoholics, often partying and orgiastic (all Schindler has to do to gain another concession is present a bottle of wine). Anton Goeth usually kills when drunk. Because his status as antagonist serves to represent the Nazis as a whole, we are led to surmise that the Holocaust can he blamed on alcohol abuse. Perhaps the Holocaust would have never happened had Goeth and company accepted their addiction and gone to AA. (In contrast, Schindler has to goad the Jewish accountant into having a drink.) The movie reflects certain mores in today’s United States: a popular acceptance of victimization and an AA philosophy of “powerlessness,” with its presumption that alcoholism is one of the main causes of society’s ills. The film depicts the Nazi movement as disorderly and confused, not highly organized: e.g., it does not execute genocide with cool efficiency. SCHINDLER’S LIST ascribes reasons to the Holocaust. Goeth seems to kill only those who are infirm, not willing to follow orders, or sitting down on the job: i.e., the one-armed man, the woman architect whining about faulty construction, the slow hinge maker, and the boy failing to scrub out a stain. These are reprehensible reasons to kill but reasons nonetheless. Even when Goeth takes a practice shot from his balcony, he kills a fat babushka taking a break and sitting down outside a line of hard workers. Yet my father is by accident the only survivor from his family. His mother and sister were shot, his father and youngest brother were gassed, and his other brother was hung indiscriminately. My father is a Schindler Jew by Les White comparisons of SCHINDLER’S LIST to Spielberg’s other movies cannot he overlooked. Schindler does come off like a super-human Indiana Jones or the archaeologists in Jurassic Park. The Nazis can he compared to the dinosaurs running loose in JURASSIC PARK or to the shark in JAWS: nature that cannot be wholly controlled, but nature that can be explained as primitive. The Jews-the pitiful Jews showing fear - represent the child in us, like the Indian children rescued by Indiana Jones or the children scared by dinosaurs in JURASSIC PARK. SCHINDLER’S LIST backs off from showing us starving concentration camp inmates who, if lucky to remain alive had to release their souls from their bodies in order to survive as emotionless robots. To have thought about the surrounding horrors would have killed one’s will to live. To have reacted to the horrors would have called undue attention to oneself and more than likely have resulted in being shot on the spot. The audience’s horror is mitigated because the faces shown mirror our own fear. How differently we would react if we were watching the concentration camp inmates remain impassive, expecting their treatment. We would be outraged that people can treat other people so senselessly, and we might face the painful truth that all of us have within ourselves the capacity to accept such treatment or be killed or even work in the camps in such a way that we partake in killing our own. SCHINDLER’S LIST puts a face on the Holocaust which makes it more comfortable for the audience. David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Life series, in conjunction with the BBC Natural History Unit, David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The Amber Time Machine. David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The Ascent of Man David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia , Civilisation David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia series Eastwards with Attenborough, David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The Tribal Eye, ) David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The Explorers, ). David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Fabulous Animals (), David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Attenborough has continued as one of the presenters of BBC Radio ’s “Tweet of the Day”, David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia David Attenborough’s Life Stories David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Americans are just extraordinarily unaware of all kinds of things. If you live in the middle of that vast continent, with apparently everything your heart could wish for just because you were born there, then why worry? David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia too many people for too little land. That’s what it’s about. And we are blinding ourselves. We say, get the United Nations to send them bags of flour. That’s barmy David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy’. David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy’. David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Darwin and the Tree of Life. In reference to the programme, Attenborough David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia it is not a theory. Evolution is as solid a historical fact as you could conceive. Evidence from every quarter. What is a theory is whether natural selection is the mechanism and the only mechanism. That is a theory. But the historical reality that dinosaurs led to birds and mammals produced whales, that’s not theory.“[] David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia The licence fee is the basis on which the BBC is based and if you destroy it, broadcasting… becomes a wasteland.[] David Attenborough - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia "David Attenborough: My tears for my dear old brother”. Mail Online Slavoj - What can psychoanalysis tell us about cyberspace What we get here is another version of the kingdom of Tarzan or She: in Rider Haggard’s She, Freud’s notorious claim that feminine sexuality is a “dark continent” is realized in a literal way: she-who-must-be-obeyed, this Master be- yond Law, the possessor of the Secret of Life itself, is a White Woman ruling in the midst of Africa, the dark continent. This figure of She, of a woman who exists (in the unexplored Be- yond), is the necessary fantasmatic support of the patriarchal universe. With the advent of modern science, this Beyond is abolished, there is no longer a “dark continent” which generates a Secret—and, consequently, Meaning is also lost, since the field of Meaning is by definition sustained by an impenetrable dark spot in its very heart. Slavoj - What can psychoanalysis tell us about cyberspace for Heidegger, modern sci- ence stands for the metaphysical “danger”: It poses a threat to the universe of meaning. There is no meaning without some dark spot, without some forbidden/impenetrable domain into which we project fantasies which guarantee our horizon of meaning. Perhaps, this very growing disenchantment of our ac- tual social world accounts for the fascination exerted by cyber- space: It is as if, in it, we encounter again a Limit beyond which the mysterious domain of the fantasmatic Otherness opens up, as if the screen of the interface is today’s version of the blank, of the unknown region Slavoj - What can psychoanalysis tell us about cyberspace universe is thus in a sense more “open” than the universe of science: It implies the gateway into the indefinite Beyond, while the direct global model of the mod- ern science is effectively “closed,” i.e., it allows for no Beyond. The universe of modern science, in its very “meaninglessness,” involves the gesture of “going through fantasy,” of abolishing the dark spot, the domain of the Unexplained which harbors fantasies and thus guarantees Meaning: Instead of it, we get the meaningless mechanism.

cgccg5dqewk http://ift.tt/2knqv4M

It is as if Richard is driven to such an extreme of painful madness with this music that, for him, the only way to get rid of this unbearable pressure of music is to directly identify with it … In one of the episodes of the 1945 British horror omnibus Dead of the Night, Michael Redgrave plays the ventriloquist who becomes jealous of his dummy, gnawed by the suspicion that it wants to leave him for a competitor; at the episode’s end, after destroying the dummy by way of thrashing its head, he is hospitalized; after reawakening from psychic coma, he identifies with his symptom (the dummy), starting to talk and contorting his face like it. …Richard enacts a properly psychotic identification with the symptom, with the musical rhythm as the cipher of his destiny: like an alien intruder, music parasitizes, colonizes him… …Since it is structurally impossible for him to get rid of the symptom, the only way out of it, the only way to resolve the tension, is to directly identify with the symptom, to become one’s own symptom – in exact homology to Hitchcock’s Psycho at the end of which the only way for Norman to get rid of his mother is to identify with her directly, to let her take over his personality and, using his body as a ventriloquist uses his dummy, speak through him

http://ift.tt/2jOJamw

one of the most disturbing TV episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, ‘The Glass Eye’ (the opening episode of the third year). Jessica Tandy (again – the very actress who was the original Mouth!) plays here a lone woman who falls for a handsome ventriloquist, Max Collodi (a reference to the author of Pinocchio). When she gathers the courage to approach him alone in his quarters, she declares her love for him and steps forward to embrace him, only to find that she is holding in her hands a wooden dummy’s head; after she withdraws in horror, the ‘dummy’ stands up and pulls off its mask, and we see the face of a sad older dwarf who starts to jump desperately on the table, asking the woman to go away … The ventriloquist is in fact the dummy, while the hideous dummy is the actual ventriloquist. …The partial object, which is effectively alive, and whose dead puppet the ‘real’ person is: the ‘real’ person is merely alive, a survival machine, a ‘human animal’, while the apparently ‘dead’ supplement is the focus of excessive Life.

http://ift.tt/2jnyqiZ

This enigma of the Other’s desire is an enigma for the Other itself. Only at this level do we reach ‘symbolic castration’ which does not stand for the subject’s ‘castration’, for his/her being at the mercy of the big Other, for his/her depending on its whims, but for the ‘castration’ of this Other itself. The barred Other is thus not just the depersonalized Other but also the bar which cracks this depersonalized Other itself.

http://ift.tt/2kLcnTy

Hysteria emerges when a subject starts to question or to feel discomfort in his or her symbolic identity

http://ift.tt/2k6Noqq

What is enigmatic for the Other is myself, i.e. I am the enigma for the Other, so that I find myself in the strange position (like in detective novels) of someone who all of a sudden finds himself persecuted, treated as if he knows (or owns) something, bears a secret, but is totally unaware what this secret is. The formula of the enigma is thus: ‘What am I for the Other? What for an object of the Other’s desire am I?’ Because of this gap, the subject cannot ever fully and immediately identify with his symbolic mask or title

http://ift.tt/2kFvDBV

the subject is the retroactive effect of the failure of its representation. It is because of this failure that the subject is divided – not into something and something else, but into something (its symbolic representation) and nothing, and fantasy fills the void of this nothingness. And the catch is that this symbolic representation of the subject is primordially not its own: prior to speaking, I am spoken

http://ift.tt/2jpb07Q

Is making people ‘see what it is they do feel’ not bringing about a kind of self-knowledge? (An elementary case of ‘seeing’ would be to discern the ambiguous hatred beneath which the analyst suspects there is hidden love [or vice versa].) The answer is that knowledge gained in analysis is a knowledge to be forgotten, discarded: once I ‘see what it is that I feel’, I don’t go on dwelling in it, I just leave it behind – why? Not because of some decisionist mystique (‘to be creative, one should overcome Hamlet-like procrastinations, too much self-analysing, and just do it!’) but because the true task of analysis is to open up a void in the midst of our subjectivity: when we discard the knowledge gained in analysis, we open ourselves to this void. Therein resides the link between analysis and love: in love we really do know the other person in some profound sense – and also we really don’t. And you could think that the fantasy of knowing is spurred by or prompted by something like ‘this person has a powerful effect on me and it’s so overwhelming that I’m going to manage this through a fantasy of knowledge’. For Proust, for example, knowing people is often very much about dealing with the anxiety that one can’t control them.3 Disparities (Slavoj Žižek) 4132-4135Wednesday, 18 January 17:44:34 the subject is the retroactive effect of the failure of its representation. It is because of this failure that the subject is divided – not into something and something else, but into something (its symbolic representation) and nothing, and fantasy fills the void of this nothingness. And the catch is that this symbolic representation of the subject is primordially not its own: prior to speaking, I am spoken

http://ift.tt/2kcuFMR

Psychoanalysis does not aim at replacing the false or cyphered self-knowledge with the real one, but at getting rid of the need for self-knowledge, at enabling the patient to act without self-knowledge. Does this bring us back to the ancient wisdom, ‘Just do it, don’t think about it!’ Does it amount to a return to naiveté? The (negative) answer is provided by Phillips’s second point about suffering: Patients come because they are suffering from something. They want that suffering to be alleviated. Ideally, in the process of doing the analysis, they might find their suffering is alleviated or modified, but also they might discover there are more important things than to alleviate one’s suffering.

http://ift.tt/2j9Dgju

By deceiving others through politeness and social pretence, we in fact deceive ourselves and transform our pragmatic, polite behaviour into virtuous behaviour.

http://ift.tt/2kkQEyl

What is usually referred to as ‘borderline’ is precisely hysteria in our time of permissiveness, and the time when the traditional figure of the Master is more and more replaced by the neutral expert legitimized by his (scientific) knowledge

http://ift.tt/2j2mliZ

The hysteric is horrified at being ‘reduced to an object’, at being invested with the agalma which makes him or her the object of other’s desire.

http://ift.tt/2kkPW7w

Every neighbour is ultimately creepy. What makes a neighbour creepy is not his weird acts but the impenetrability of the desire that sustains these acts.

http://ift.tt/2jGighq

We cannot find a proper way to relate to our own jouissance – the ultimate incompatibility is not between mine and another’s jouissance, but between myself and my own intruder. It is to resolve this deadlock that the subject projects the core of its jouissance onto an Other, attributing to this Other full access to a consistent jouissance.

http://ift.tt/2jCh7av

Loving the illusion of the good in others may make us be polite in order to become lovable, which, in turn, exercises our self-mastery, leads us to control our passions and, eventually, to love the good for its own sake.

http://ift.tt/2iUjl3b

the love of the illusion of the good can lead to the love of the good itself: if one loves the illusion of the good and enacts this illusion in social intercourse, one might come to appreciate its worth and to love the good itself for its own sake

http://ift.tt/2jdDB0J

There is no domain left unseen, ignored by the PC law – its law tolerates no unwritten rules, there is no space here for a transgressive behaviour which violates explicit rules and is precisely as such not only tolerated but even solicited by the law.

http://ift.tt/2iT0VDh