8:20 PM 09/06/2013
Listening to House
Wo Es war, soll Ich werden.
Where there was desire there shall I be, the subject should assume the object cause of desire, the subject should place itself in the place of the cause of desire, “the subject’s situating of itself as the cause of its own desire” 245 Neill
Now its Trance
Calum says this, “The ethical moment is purely subjective and, as Lacan stresses, one will have to pay for it. It is not already, and cannot already, be formulated in the symbolic order as one would encounter it but, rather, it entails the separation from and return to and, thus, change in and in relation to, the symbolic.” 247-8
This is what I’m getting from Calum. His disagreement with the Slovenian School regards the ethics of the Real, which Neill rejects. Ethics for Neill must include a role for the symbolic register. You can’t just do ethics out of the symbolic, in the Real, cause then how do you talk about it, it is without meaning if it remains ‘stuck’ there in the Real.
But I’m not convinced with Calum’s version of Lacanian ethics. He’s big on desire; emphasizes the conjunction of the symbolic and the Real. He says that ethics is about desire on that dangerous precipice between the two registers. But is desire radical? His emphasis on desire instead of the Real, the Real in his theory plays really a marginal role, whereas I tend to think a radical ethics places the Real center stage. I think this is how Terry Eagleton understands Lacanian ethics notwithstanding the fact that he is not a fan.
Hardstyle whatever that is
9:37 PM Ok. Now I’m reading Terry Eagleton. I mean I read his book on ethics 2 years ago but I should have take real careful notes cause I don’t remember what he said bozo. I am boze on this. So here is an article I’m reading and I promise to be better.
Avatars of the Real I like this term. However Eagleton concludes with a total rejection of what he considers to be a Parisian disdain for the everyday subtext which really all an ethics of the Real is a cover.