Present work<\/b><\/p>\n
Reduces difference to difference between different entitites. What is lost is precisely sexual difference to gender difference what is lost is this negativity<\/p>\n
Epistemological Ontological<\/b><\/p>\n
2:00 New Materialism, Object Oriented Ontology: Treat real as something we need to reach and make objectively present. Real make objectively present. They misread psychoanalysis, because it is about more than simply subjective experience. Never get out of the cage of discursive deconstructed reality, but setting it up this way is false.<\/p>\n
3:40 Trying to think about something of epistemological order that is already at work on the ontological level<\/p>\n
4:00 KANT<\/p>\n
Went back to Kant through this perspective of how to think of it in relationship to this, ontological negativity and ethical imperative is all about, what it strives to articulate, a holder for this very negativity. So definitely the attempt to articulate this, this thing is definitely there \u2026<\/p>\n
5:15 Absolute Necessity and Freedom<\/b><\/p>\n
This is the crucial point:<\/p>\n
This kind of opposition which brings us back to materialist discussions, they try to re-read as if there is an Absolute guarantee or principal to guarantee what is out there.<\/p>\n
But the Absolute precisely is what is not out there<\/p>\n
7:00 Hegel: Absolute is precisely there when there is no higher ground, it cannot simply be thought independently of subjectivity but at the same time it is precisely not subjective, the subject is kind of an answer to this, an entity in this sense correlative to the Absolute.<\/p>\n
8:00 Absolute Necessity is precisely the point when there is no higher reason<\/p>\n
KANT: DUTY<\/p>\n
Everything is already laid out for you, as part of reality and you just have to figure out what is right and the CI can help you.<\/p>\n
No, it is rather something that opens up or introduces something that is not already there, in this way it introduces a new element [?]<\/p>\n
9:30 One could rethink Kant in this way, a kind of formula that tries to capture this non-realized dimension that is negativity, and is not so much what you must do in order to act \u2026<\/p>\n
10:00 This Kant where the CI is a kind of recipe this is not the best Kant, obsessive preoccupation, did you really act truly without pathological.<\/p>\n
If one reduces Kant to this one loses an important dimension<\/p>\n
I used the term Non-realized, I just used it by way of association, Lacan actually uses this term is Seminar 11<\/i>. When he speaks about Unconscious pertains to the order of the non-realized \u2026 he uses this term he uses it in the same sense, non-realized not as something which is waiting to be realized but precisely as a negative underpinning of everything that happens.\u00a0 It is not something not yet born but will be born once you\u2019re in analysis.\u00a0 Something happens ontologically, before something is being.<\/p>\n
Its not that now we\u2019ll make it be, but we need to somehow circumscribe or think the very negativity that is very much involved in structuring the positive order of being, that there is this not really causality but relation with this negativity and what is articulated around it as positive order of being, there is some kind of logic of appearance related to this.<\/p>\n
13:00 BADIOU<\/p>\n
The biggest problem of Badiou\u2019s ontology is not really how does the Event happen or take place, no the real question is how does this inconsistent being appear \u2026 why does it appear as it appears?\u00a0 What makes this inconsistent being appear? \u00a0Why does it appear so as it appears? At a certain level again you are really faced with the question of the relationship between ontology and epistemology. Appearance is not just subjective constitution of reality, but there is also something in the very reality that kind of through subjectivity dictates this kind of constitution, as if there is something on the ontological level that is involved in the very way being appears.<\/p>\n
17:00\u00a0 Subjective Destitution: Discontinuity in the subject<\/p>\n
The subject emerges in this ethical dimension. It is precisely this figure of Synge de Coufontaine \u00a0it was crucial to think this through \u2026<\/p>\n
Badiou\u2019s Subject:<\/p>\n
18:15 For Badiou it is simply conceptualized as something subsequent to the Event.\u00a0 Inscribing it into the everyday reality by practicing, and this is a notion of subject that is fundamentally different form that in Lacan.\u00a0 One thing is that first of all for Lacan subjectivity is not simply this post-evental thing, but is also related to reality as such as point of its symptomatic impasses.<\/p>\n
First you have in Badiou this banal reality where nothing really interesting, human animal existence, nothing happens and then with Lacan you get a very different picture of reality, what is crucial, this is for Lacan, this banal reality is already traversed by all kinds of antagonisms, by all kinds of impasses.<\/p>\n
Social reality is antagonistic and there are rifts and divisions, and subject is not simply a kind of pathological subjective response, but is also a symptomatic point where this antagonism be it social or familial, is actually present as a subjective figure with its own symptoms, the symptoms psychoanalysis works with thinks certain antagonisms that structure the field of being in general<\/p>\n
Not simply some kind of subjective pathology, but always as a subject has this objective dimension \u2026 an antagonism that is constitutive of the historical moment<\/p>\n
Synce de Coufontaien or Antigone, they behave not simply subjectively, embody a certain kind of significant impasse or antagonism that structures,<\/p>\n
So there is a subjectivity, if you take any hysterical subject that Freud started to work with, he doesn\u2019t simply take this, and Lacan is explicit that this is the best in Freud, as some kind of personal problem that these woman have, but as a symptomatic subjective figure, something at stake in the reality of their existence.<\/p>\n
23:00 There is this notion of subject that can\u2019t be reduced to the figure of human animals because what it carries is this link to this negativity or madness, is there or suppressed for things to function<\/p>\n
It is obvious for Lacan, when you speak of everyday reality and its problems: internal antagonisms, struggles etc, we can\u2019t think of this without the notion of subject in the stronger sense of the word, it is not just subjective response to injustice, but the way this injustice exists for the reality within which it appears.<\/p>\n
24:30 For Lacan one could say that there is a certain dimension of the subject that is similar to Badiou\u2019s there are things that happen endure this shift, this transformation, there is the subject there before, it is not that this subject is the same as after, Event Rupture appears, there is this idea that yes, Subjective Destitution is induced by some kind of event, and it is out of this, that some kind of dimension of something which was simply not part of the configuration before, if you go back to our previous discussion, it was not simply a choice, there is another choice that becomes possible that was not there before.<\/p>\n
28:25 Something happens and then doesn\u2019t change things so much \u2026 Occupy Wall St. but it would not move to next stage, where this could be articulated \u2026<\/p>\n
31:00 Gesture of NO!<\/p>\n
Badiou\/Deleuze \u2026 subject needs to be related to something affirmative \u2026 either a formation of the event \u2026 negativity is bad. NO but then what?\u00a0 The answer is the negativity we are talking about and striving to articulate\u2026 is a negativity which as such is the underpinning of something it is not as if first we get rid of something\u2026 it is through this radical negativity that something appears. It is not a choice either you are negative you say no, or you are affirmative you say yes. This is a bad way of putting it.\u00a0 The drive is not simply negative or simply positive.<\/p>\n
Death Drive it is not simply negative or positive it can only appear or take place through this radical negativity, one can\u2019t separate the two<\/p>\n
Radical Negativity:\u00a0 When one speaks about this, they take it as if you start with a subject and then you have a whole movement to destitute it and then you\u2019re left with what?<\/p>\n
33:00 Destitution of subject PRECEDES subjectivity. You don\u2019t start with subject and let us dismantle the subject. It is not this, whatever subjectivity is there is there on behalf of the destitution. \u00a0We are persons and then we have to destitute ourselves. The notion of the subject is related to this radical negativity but it isn\u2019t as if we have to destitute the subject<\/p>\n
It is a SURPLUS that came out of this negativity.\u00a0 It is precisely the very point through which some newness emerges through this destitution<\/p>\n
That thing that emerged as a new possibility as a new something through this destitution<\/p>\n
Political reproach one gets this criticism ok but what do we do with this? But it\u2019s not supposed to be a recipe.<\/p>\n
35:00 Destitution of the subject is not a recipe, it\u2019s not ok let\u2019s now destitute the subject. It is always apr\u00e9s coup<\/i> it\u2019s always afterwards when you see the trace of the subject you follow it, because you can be sure that something already happened there<\/p>\n
Otherwise people get image of a kind of notion of the political level worshipping of the ultimate sacrifice that one can make of oneself.\u00a0 The temporality of it is twisted, one should precisely not take this as a kind of recipe or prescription but a picturing of what happens when something happens.<\/p>\n
37:00 This whole questions of ethics and politics, Slavoj wrote about it, this whole talk about the ethics, pushed from the discussion the concept of politics.<\/p>\n
38:00 Tolerating the Other, being open to otherness, Levinasian \u2026 the whole discussion, responsibility to the Other<\/p>\n
I agree with Badiou and Slavoj, this is not ethics.<\/p>\n
39:00 The Neighbour Kicking the cat<\/p>\n
Slavoj\u2019s reading of Hegel is not intersubjective dialectic, recognition<\/p>\n
Precisely this is not about recognition, this is about getting to a point of something in the other that one can\u2019t recognize, identify with and this is the point which transforms the very relationship I can have with the Other<\/p>\n
The dimension which is more real, it precisely breaks out of this imaginary game of recognition.<\/p>\n
42:00 Hegel is aware of this, he uses other terms and concepts, there is precisely something that slips away in recognition, or produced as a surplus.\u00a0 So this recognition reading is Kojeve\u2019s reading which unfortunately influenced Lacan\u2019s reading to some extent.<\/p>\n
43:00 Agota Kristoff: This sense Levinas caused damage, it is a way of avoiding the Real, sort of say.\u00a0 [Alenka much prefers Butler in her Gender Trouble phase.]<\/p>\n
45:00 An ethics that cannot simply be separated from the political you cannot have one or the other.\u00a0 Take Antigone it is a political issue that is at stake there, not just issues with her brother, but connected to how the political landscape is structured.<\/p>\n
Badiou\u2019s quarrel, is situated on this level, recognized ethical discourse is way of avoiding to think ethical on more political terms<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Present work Reduces difference to difference between different entitites. What is lost is precisely sexual difference to gender difference what is lost is this negativity Epistemological Ontological 2:00 New Materialism, Object Oriented Ontology: Treat real as something we need to reach and make objectively present. Real make objectively present. They misread psychoanalysis, because it is … Continue reading “zupan\u010di\u010d notes”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,76,41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12669","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lacan","category-sub-destitute","category-the-real"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12669","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12669"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12669\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12674,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12669\/revisions\/12674"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}