tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post7959089615785682443..comments2024-03-28T02:34:41.459-07:00Comments on Qlipoth: Orwell & AdornoQlipothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-14700411615357664392007-06-29T07:35:00.000-07:002007-06-29T07:35:00.000-07:00and you know my dear warszawa, there's this famous...and you know my dear warszawa, there's this famous psychoanalytic research you learn about in undergrad school, where it was tested whether people who had neurotic problems prior to going to war, would have them after the war; humanist therapists though they wouldn't, because facing REAL and SERIOUS problems in REALITY would somehow render the problems null and void. And indeed in combat they proved themselves unusually agile, sharp and resourceful. But as it turns out, after they returned from war, the symptoms returned as well.<BR/><BR/>This is what irritates me, Sherbert, about your Marxian affection for people with serious problems (as opposed to the burgeois comfortable petty boring ones) - the amount and quality of suffering is an entirely subjective and personal issue - like all symptoms!<BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean I want to excuse the burgeoisie from being preoccupied with their problems while exploiting the exploited, just that your humanist line of reasoning is too sweet!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-46164282970346903732007-06-29T07:21:00.000-07:002007-06-29T07:21:00.000-07:00I mean you kvetch me about the attention-deficit d...I mean you kvetch me about the attention-deficit disorder and Sherbert whines about fragmented language, but I guess reading Lacan would be TOO MUCH OF AN EFFORT wouldn't it now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-41903888480015324442007-06-29T07:17:00.000-07:002007-06-29T07:17:00.000-07:00The nihillation and absurdization procedure was pe...The nihillation and absurdization procedure was perpetrated post-Lacan, by Derrida most notably, who said that language really means nothing, but Lacan being a clinician didn't take that crucial step beyond the subject, which philosophers and writers can do much more easily because they're not dealing with living human beings in a clinical setting. <BR/><BR/>Lacan felt the subject was decentered, lacking a center, but he did not entirely dismiss the subject or turn him into a hallucination, as your money-laundering boss likes to miscegenate in order to hurt David Lynch = and all out of sheer intellekshual laziness, for neither you nor your Sherbert have actually READ any Lacan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-74224028544543472762007-06-29T07:09:00.000-07:002007-06-29T07:09:00.000-07:00In other words the encounter with the hole inside ...In other words the encounter with the hole inside does not necessarily imply either nihilism or pessimism, rather the thought that this blankness may be filled with what YOU want (instead of doing what other people want you to do).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-1501517993317137912007-06-29T07:05:00.000-07:002007-06-29T07:05:00.000-07:00I am sorry, sir, please don't cane me, I shall try...I am sorry, sir, please don't cane me, I shall try harder in future. <BR/><BR/>Call your Sherbertian mistress! Surely she can help you out of this ghastly oppression.<BR/><BR/>[Sniffles, shuffles, glares at floor, thinks: "But if the master's right, then why do Lacanians write books entitled 'Lacan: The Absolute Master'...?" <BR/><BR/>There are lots of ignorami in the world who cash in on other people's original contributions (e.g. Slovenly Zizek)...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, repeatedly bellowing "How many times did I tell you!" is not exactly the most persuasive method of dispelling "the illusion that there exists a grand Master pulling the strings". <BR/><BR/>The client enters analysis with the expectation of there existing a magical Big Other who possesses the key to his problems, the answer to his questions. As analysis progresses, the client learns that the answer to his questions will be given by his own Unconscious, as he translates its misinterpreted language to the conscious. In the end, ideally, the client will realize that there exists no such thing as a ready-made answer, because desire is by its very nature unquenchable, looping, always reconstructing itself, and your ''identity'' being a construct, you are what you MAKE OF YOURSELF; you now have the freedom to DO something with your life (Here I strongly object to the misinterpretations of Zizekians and Lenininians such as Code Inconnu Poetics or Owen, that the goal of Lacanian therapy is to ''subjectively destitute'' you, face you with nihil ad absurdum, sollipsism, and leave it at that, leave you hanging in the air as one big zero; no, the idea is more to help you realize that you can build yourself into something, realize your dreams, make the impossible possible, unimpeded by fantasmatic fears and neurotic symptoms.<BR/><BR/>Precisely the opposite of soap opera humanist therapies that teach you to get in touch with your positive inner being, resting on the authority of the therapist, the coach, the guru, the Big Other, and in this way perpetuate your symptomatology (the erroneous belief that there is a positive ''inner core'', whether in yourself or projected into a therapist).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-26960747756402379492007-06-29T06:00:00.000-07:002007-06-29T06:00:00.000-07:00"Warszawa you ignoramus, how many times did I tell...<I>"Warszawa you ignoramus, how many times did I tell you that the goal of analysis is to dispel the illusion that ther exists a grand Master pulling the strings? "</I><BR/><BR/>I am sorry, sir, please don't cane me, I shall try harder in future. [Sniffles, shuffles, glares at floor, thinks: "But if the master's right, then why do Lacanians write books entitled 'Lacan: The Absolute Master'...?" http://www.amazon.com/Lacan-Absolute-Master-Mikkel-Borch-Jacobsen/dp/0804717281 ]<BR/><BR/>(Mr. Borch-Jacobsen must have undergone a <I>very effective</I> Lacanian analysis.) <BR/><BR/>Anyway, repeatedly bellowing "How many times did I tell you!" is not exactly the most persuasive method of dispelling "the illusion that there exists a grand Master pulling the strings". It reminds me of an old poem by Tom Leonard, entitled 'Scots Education', which I here reproduce in full:<BR/><BR/><I>Ah telt ye.<BR/><BR/>Ah telt ye.</I>Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-3596270841643072722007-06-29T05:40:00.000-07:002007-06-29T05:40:00.000-07:00No thank you, I have no interest in buying The Wat...No thank you, I have no interest in buying The Watchtower. No really, I'm an atheist. Look, I'm sorry, but I really have to be going...<BR/><BR/>[Struggles to close door]Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-55270527046961665572007-06-29T05:39:00.000-07:002007-06-29T05:39:00.000-07:00And it's probably no accident that you're outside ...And it's probably no accident that you're outside the academy, which has a lot in common with both the theatre and the corporation, and which is increasingly required to hide what it has become. <BR/><BR/>It's no accident I can tell you that for sure. Her profession - currency peddling - dispenses with the theatre and embraces the corporation fully! She fled the reactionariness and ambiguity of the academia to embrace the directness and concreteness of DIRTY CASH:<BR/><BR/>money talks! money walks!<BR/>dirty cash I want you,<BR/>dirty cash I need you all !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-70906590510871547712007-06-29T05:29:00.000-07:002007-06-29T05:29:00.000-07:00('Using'?) I am relieved to hear that The Absolute...('Using'?) I am relieved to hear that The Absolute Master did not actually recommend chaining 'the client' to the couch. <BR/><BR/>Warszawa you ignoramus, how many times did I tell you that the goal of analysis is to dispel the illusion that ther exists a grand Master pulling the strings? That this is instead what the client erroneously expects to get at the beginning of analysis.<BR/><BR/>Then he ignores it and tells the 'client' that his problem actually lies in his faulty relationship to a disembodied Big Other, aka Cthulhu.<BR/><BR/>He does NOT ignore it. He sees the body functioning together with the mind. It is humanist critics like you who actually separate the body from the mind, privileging the body in the name of ''creative expression''. <BR/><BR/>(It just kind of happens, eventually, or else it doesn't.) <BR/><BR/>Whereas your cum recipe works under all circumstances for EVERYBODY - like Communism, I guess.Ha ha ha ha ha ha haAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-58810124358296774812007-06-29T05:19:00.000-07:002007-06-29T05:19:00.000-07:00"a Lacanian client is neither PROHIBITED nor PREVE...<I>"a Lacanian client is neither PROHIBITED nor PREVENTED from using his body in analysis."</I><BR/><BR/>('Using'?) I am relieved to hear that The Absolute Master did not actually recommend chaining 'the client' to the couch. <BR/><BR/><I>"Lacan sees the body language, as any other language."</I><BR/><BR/>Then he ignores it and tells the 'client' that his problem actually lies in his faulty relationship to a disembodied Big Other, aka Cthulhu. This faulty relationship can only be corrected by reciting certain complicated magic spells known only to the Absolute Master; and it may take years (if not a lifetime) of solemn recitation before 'the client' finally achieves liberation from Cthulhu's awful tentacles. No one knows how, exactly. (It just kind of happens, eventually, or else it doesn't.) And in the face of such unspeakable mysteries, it would be unspeakably vulgar to ask who's paying whom, and why.<BR/><BR/><I>"The complaint against prohibition comes from the client's other repressed prohibitions - from his parents, namely."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, somebody should have caled the Nobel Prize Committee. It's a pity Reich and indeed Freud weren't around to experience the benefits of such a stunningly original theoretical Insight. One small step for Lacan, one giant leap for mankind.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-35915282426851787302007-06-29T05:05:00.000-07:002007-06-29T05:05:00.000-07:00Not for nothing was Onan called an onanist. That's...Not for nothing was Onan called an onanist. <BR/><BR/>That's indeed opportune coming from a man who can overflow an airplane with cum!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-85803588282444196102007-06-29T05:01:00.000-07:002007-06-29T05:01:00.000-07:00I think there is a greater tendency in Marxists to...I think there is a greater tendency in Marxists to clarity of language, specificity of terms (and consistent use of terms), than in the "Marxian" or liberal or reactionary post-structuralist stuff...<BR/><BR/>Here, Warszawa, this is where the Sherbert's intellect encounters its own eclipse. Even the convolutedness of Poetix's thought pales in comparison to the literary output of self-managers in 1970s Yugoslavia. There is no parallel in capitalism to the level of absurdist rhetorics combined with malignant circularity that infested the doublespeak of socialist politicians and cultural theorists. Tony Blair? Don't make me laugh. His speeches sound like poetry in comparison. But the Currency Trader is no longer operating on common sense when she makes such a statement...it is her reactionary Orthodoxic Marxianism that speaks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-44807608583584877312007-06-29T04:50:00.000-07:002007-06-29T04:50:00.000-07:00"Why is the Oriental Beauty not responding herself...<I>"Why is the Oriental Beauty not responding herself? "</I><BR/><BR/>Why do people not respond when Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking at the door? It's an unfathomable mystery.<BR/><BR/><I>"And is Lacan to blame that certain of his disciples have transformed his intentions into verbal masturbation?"</I><BR/><BR/>Not for nothing was Onan called an onanist.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-14035869383625184242007-06-29T04:38:00.000-07:002007-06-29T04:38:00.000-07:00I've noticed that many actors are interested in Re...I've noticed that many actors are interested in Reich, and not for no reason. If you work in the theatre, it's impossible to forget that you have a body, that you are in fact your body, as is everyone else. <BR/><BR/>I believe it was around 1,000.000 times that I repeated the answer to this to psychodramatists and theatre actors with amateur psychologist aspirations: a Lacanian client is neither PROHIBITED nor PREVENTED from using his body in analysis. Lacan sees the body language, as any other language. The complaint against prohibition comes from the client's other repressed prohibitions - from his parents, namely. There is no prescribed way of expressing yourself in Lacanian analysis, though. And is Lacan to blame that certain of his disciples have transformed his intentions into verbal masturbation?<BR/><BR/>Your posts are too lengthy and don't interest me anyway,<BR/><BR/>Why is the Oriental Beauty not responding herself? Evasion tactics! Well ok, I'll just crank up the level of parody. Anyway they DO interest me, or I wouldn't be reading them. WHat doesn't interest me is the surgical Marxist incision which moulds all of Le Sherbert's creative thought in accordance with the Party Line.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-83663287792779115822007-06-29T02:20:00.000-07:002007-06-29T02:20:00.000-07:00"kvetch, kvetch, kvetch"Dejan, have you reached th...<I>"kvetch, kvetch, kvetch"</I><BR/><BR/>Dejan, have you reached the Mirror Stage yet? <BR/><BR/><I>"why don't you just write a book that does it PROPERLY? "</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, this is great. "Your posts are too lengthy and don't interest me anyway, therefore I advise you to write a book-length study (which I wouldn't read, but just mischaracterise and then snigger at)." <BR/><BR/><I>"the main thought you stated is something like this"</I><BR/><BR/>The main thought the colonel stated was in fact absolutely nothing like that. This is not Cultural Parody but Asinine Misrepresentation. <BR/><BR/><I>"Warszawa are you involved in the theater world? Now I understand your affections for Reichianism better! "</I><BR/><BR/>I've noticed that many actors are interested in Reich, and not for no reason. If you work in the theatre, it's impossible to forget that you have a body, that you are in fact your body, as is everyone else. For people employed in the academy, or as appendages of Steve Jobs products, it is possible to forget this quite easily. Then lacan starts to look like an interesting student of the human condition.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-43512736148177044422007-06-28T18:21:00.000-07:002007-06-28T18:21:00.000-07:00declining traditional erudition among professional...declining traditional erudition among professionals, the success of anticommunism, the rewards for everything serviceable to capital, the punishment for all product that is not serviceable)\<BR/><BR/>kvetch, kvetch, kvetch. why don't you just write a book that does it PROPERLY?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-38451062384534177282007-06-28T16:20:00.000-07:002007-06-28T16:20:00.000-07:00(The problem is not the length of a sentence or th...(The problem is not the length of a sentence or the number of sub-clauses or the complexity of the syntax.) <BR/><BR/>It's not a problem per se, but it's a problem when like Le Colonel Sherbert you only have ONE thing to say...<BR/><BR/>Warszawa are you involved in the theater world? Now I understand your affections for Reichianism better!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-71176192011283033012007-06-28T16:16:00.000-07:002007-06-28T16:16:00.000-07:00The show must go on, and on and on and on. Indeed,...The show must go on, and on and on and on. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, it's one big endless LAMENT - ''there's no time for us, it's all decided for us; this world has only one sweet moment set aside for us... who wants to live forever?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-64003898845600291412007-06-28T16:14:00.000-07:002007-06-28T16:14:00.000-07:00...naturally, all this quetching barely disguises ......naturally, all this quetching barely disguises the fact that orthopaedic Marxism isn't CAPABLE of doing anything against capitalism, or else it wouldn't be complaining as much!<BR/><BR/>I do appreciate its value as criticism, as something that puts limits on the proliferation of post-modern readings that end in sollipsism, in a total denial of the human agent, but that's it for me. Apart from that the whole thing just isn't very exciting intellekshually.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-70287476836546700492007-06-28T16:09:00.000-07:002007-06-28T16:09:00.000-07:00In the three unneccessarily long comments you wrot...In the three unneccessarily long comments you wrote here, I hope you realize, the main thought you stated is something like this:<BR/><BR/>since EVERYTHING is the result of the capitalist commodity-industry, all thought and writing is pointless<BR/><BR/>from this you derived another implication:<BR/><BR/>it's best that we return to the 18th century, for there writing was thorough and with content<BR/><BR/>and another:<BR/><BR/>ALL visual culture is shit, because it destroys the quality of writing<BR/><BR/>there are two current strands of thought that directly correlate with your thinking:<BR/><BR/>(a) the dekline of simbolik efikasy - as dr. Zizek postulates drawing on Lacan, the current crisis of capitalism is caused by humanity's increasing inability to use language (the signifier divorced from the Master signifier)<BR/><BR/>(b) Baudrillard's simulacrum - the all-enveloping commodity industry envelops everything, and as a result, no change is possible<BR/><BR/>What remains to be done is kvetching David Lynch fans and complaining endlessly, for that is indeed Colonel Chabert's main task!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-91938978501323853162007-06-28T13:19:00.000-07:002007-06-28T13:19:00.000-07:00The show must go on, and on and on and on.The show must go on, and on and on and on.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-57088292492238730812007-06-28T13:11:00.000-07:002007-06-28T13:11:00.000-07:00Thanks for the summary of Dienst's book, colonel. ...Thanks for the summary of Dienst's book, colonel. It does sound interesting, maybe I'll order it. (Who was it who said, "The cinema is your host, but the TV is your guest"? A strange guest that hypnotises you and then colonises your house.) <BR/><BR/><I>"...the pressure to write or to lecture when you have nothing but vague questions to convey. When you write that some rhetoric "participates" in some list of "discourses" what you are saying is you notice this correllation and connection but don't know how it works. So you don't have anything to say yet, just an intuition. But as there is professional pressure to publish,..."</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly again. Maybe in parallel, you have (in the theatre) the professional pressure to direct or to act when you have nothing but vague questions to convey, plus a gap to fill, and a subsidy to justify, and rent to pay. I've heard many thoughtful German actors and directors talk regretfully, and exhaustedly, about "der Betrieb", the factory or business character of the theatre (even and especially in its state-sponsored form): the demand for a certain amount of product, to be supplied dependably every day, every month, every year. Feeding Moloch. A couple of years after the Wall, and a couple of years before his death, Heiner Müller said that the only defensible theatre in the 1990s would be a theatre that nobody wanted to see. He actually came close to achieving that with a couple of productions, including a Brecht fragment, stretched to infinity, which regularly played to 20% capacity (and half of even that audience left before the end). It was actually quite brilliant and simultaneously very boring. So questions began to be asked in newspapers and other high places, and inevitably he was forced to produce a hit, immediately after which he died. And though he's currently pretty much out of fashion, he did have countless very poor imitators, who seemd to intuit very vaguely what he was at but could do nothing with it. ("a tremendous amount of fraudulent product")- Much the same applies to Einar Schleef. <BR/><BR/>Now here's a Jump Cut (I have learned from Dejan how to camouflage ATD): it was strange for me to see that this businessman I mentioned earlier was apparently required to have mastered the language of contemporary marketing, and to show that he had mastered it, to show willing. It wasn't enough to be eager and capable and forceful and reliable and competent and <I>good with money</I> and <I>able to work under pressure</I> and all that; no, no, he could have been Henry Ford and it wouldn't have mattered: he was to be a (big shiny) corporate cog, so mastery of this <I>language</I> was absolutely required of him. It was as if he had to go through a (long, expensive) apprenticeship and do a test before he was permitted to join the illustrious ranks of the sorcerors. He had to demonstrate that he could obfuscate and mystify his own activity while pretending that he was actually elucidating it. "To justify the ways of God to men."<BR/><BR/>- Sorry, all this is a really rambling, eh, "associative" response to your excellent posts, which are both complex and lucid , thus proving that it can in fact be done. (The problem is not the length of a sentence or the number of sub-clauses or the complexity of the syntax.) And it's probably no accident that you're outside the academy, which has a lot in common with both the theatre and the corporation, and which is increasingly required to hide what it has become.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-61536524575721226482007-06-28T11:58:00.000-07:002007-06-28T11:58:00.000-07:00thanks Q; I chose the Dienst because it's actually...thanks Q; I chose the Dienst because it's actually a pretty good book which only occasionally exhibits this kind of thing, so that one can look at this sentence in its context and see precisely how the jargon and style is interfering with the analysis the text undertakes. When you have a whole text written like this, it's different, there is a dominant operation of obfuscation and nothing really competing with it; when you have a text with little elements like this, which are legible (retrievable) in their context, you can sort of see the functioning of this style more clearly because in this case it fails (the context clarifies what the style obscures). That sentence comes in the middle of an account of raymond williams' remarks on television, and Dienst is discussing the development of television, as opposed to cinema, and the importance of instantaneousness and "real time" to the conception of television as a medium: initially televsion did not require recording, any more than telephones did. It was initially unlike cinema in this respect. Then he goes on to speak of the introduction of recording in various ways into television, finally suggesting that the implications - the ideological suggestion - of the instantaneous "distant seeing" of the medium of television continue to dominate how recorded images are perceived when consumed in this medium and through its apparatus. An impression of "real time" (producing an illusion of distant seeing of a world, of watching history unfolding in your living room) associated with the medium itself (with the image of the medium) and its technology somehow persists even when one is watching recorded programmes out of broadcast schedule. This may or may not be an accurate observation regarding how people perceive videotape viewed on tv screens; it may be more true sometimes and someplaces than others; but at least it is an intelligible proposition. What the invasion of that style there does is give an aura of metaphysical mystery, of a certain ineffability - piling up ambiguities, <I>visibly vainly struggling for words</I> - to a suggestion that is perhaps not just obvious and banal, requiring one to engage in abstraction, but not in the least mystical. In this way it protects the proposition from critique but at the price of the persuasiveness of the proposition itself, and generally encourages a sense of wonder and befuddlement befogging the inquiry underway. (In this book that's not a huge factor, actually, but this is why the effect is so obvious here, while in many others it is dominant and really does succeed in fending off critique and sort of deactivating rationality). This jargon and style may entice some readers and writers because it seems to offer a short way to defamiliarising and thus deactivating clichés, but it is very convenient for the transformation of conceptual abstractions into fairy production or mysticism, that is, to the ultimate abolition of conceptual abstraction and its replacement by fetishism.Le Colonel Chaberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18090919492176021408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-50838759041378545282007-06-28T10:45:00.000-07:002007-06-28T10:45:00.000-07:00"nobody in the profession can accept that the only...<I>"nobody in the profession can accept that the only important question was answered before they were born. The underlying question is "what is this for?" (What is the industry's purpose?)"</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly. And I'd just mention in passing that there is an equally visible inflation of language in marketing and business, a real linguistic arms race apparently. I recently helped a German guy with his incredibly pretentious and overblown job application for a higher-management post in a multinational firm with subsidiaries in both germany and britain. He was fine with me tidying up the syntax and grammar and removing the germanisms, but he wanted all the unspeakably pretentious marketing and "psychology" verbiage left in. I said "OK, on your own head be it, but don't blame me if you don't get the job." He got the job. And I was paid very well for helping him. <BR/><BR/> - Eggs, fruit, olive oil, RIESLING...Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18174466.post-703821925241141222007-06-28T10:35:00.000-07:002007-06-28T10:35:00.000-07:00"statements such" = "statements such as""statements such" = "statements such as"Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.com