Jack - 01/19/03 07:00:17 EST
But DNA coding does decay, as does digital matter.Which is one reason why cloning is so risky: cloned sheep are born old.And people grow old and die no matter how well analyzed they are--even Lacan did.And I suppose even he died in Egypt. The limit of freedom is madness, where one is really stuck.The law frees us by creating lack; but the law, of course, is always contaminated by a certain fixity. I don't think that the real and nature are concurrent. The real repetes itself, always returns to the same place.Nature has to do with what is born. It is only when it is put in place, after the fact, by the mediation of the signifier (which makes a hole in the real, thereby instituting it as an order) that the real can return. What we were born with, our DNA coding, doesn't return; it never left.But the actual molecules have certainly departed, without any possibility of return. It takes more than a code to make a man. You need signifiers, and a locus thereof.I know you didn't ask me, but I thought I would make a stab at answering you anyway. Since I was up and in a chatty mood.

slichanoo - 01/19/03 05:59:48 EST
chris (et Tarkovskii co.) since 1/13 the invitation to adequately describe the cinematic version of strogatsky's (french)novel, "stalker", in terms of the triadic Order still stands. The translation into french would differ from the english subtitles and "a day for a picnic" would be obscured not only from the avowal on behalf of the cinematographer, but would from his viewers, to whom the last word was said to be given. This is Tarkovskii's professed outlook. In the film, the stalker announces The zone's inherent neutrality when humans are absent. What happens in the zone is a reflection of the mind and temperment of th9ose present, that is to say, their thoughts create the reality--not the Real, as the distinction is familiar, not only in Lacan, but Freud makes the distinction (already found in german) between Wirklichkeit and Realitaet. Hisotry ends (the frozen tanks), but nature continues continues.To what degree are the Real and Nature concurrent temrs? the reality ewhich forms through the human mind: Imaginary (and therefore marc's remark "for gainsake would be unspeakeble in their imaginary realm" continues to strike me as anything but ignorant); the SYmbolic may entail, not only the words announced, but the images of the surrounding environment of the film, hypodermic needles, pages of book, calendar, a medieval painting depicting a halo'ed christ rising up (resurecting) through water and from among monetary coins.the "self-reflexive aesthetic discourse" (auto-analysis of one's response to artwork)was exchanged for "analytic discourse" (the progress of the talking-cure)in light of alternative usage of the clinical, rather than admit of solely heuristic purpose.

jack - 01/19/03 02:57:15 EST
The flaming-small talk binary was no doubt a little too facile. Small talk (the empty speech of Lacan's early teaching)doesn't so much imply that the "Other isn't there," but that the Other, the unconscious Other, the Other whose desire is the desire of the subject, is irrelevant.When one writes a cover letter, for a job request or a scholarly submission, one tends to pretend to just be stating the facts, providing relevant information, when in fact one is engaged in an act of seduction, a bid for recognition.It's not a question of what one has actually achieved, but of how one wants to appear. One pretends to be merely communicating, and tries to avoid appearing to be showing off, even though that is what one is actually doing. No doubt there are some folks who have mastered the art of being both civil and substantive online, but I have always found it very hard to arrive at that happy medium when I don't have a clear idea of who I am talking to or of how they see me. A certain desperation sets in when I know I am being looked at but I don't know by what, or how I am seen.The imaginary risks fragmentation when it bumps into the non-representable real of all those gazes out there. It is always a little tempting to pull the fragments together into something that has the effect of a fist.

lucas - 01/18/03 16:29:05 EST
oh absolutely am and obsessive too but I accept that

outsider - 01/18/03 15:25:38 EST
lucas - (notice the indication that you're somewhat anal?)

Rupert - 01/18/03 15:22:47 EST
lucas - let 'em all think you're just THAT anal.

lucas - 01/18/03 07:17:09 EST
The difficulty with online discourse is that one says too much (flames) or nothing at all (small talk). Oh lucas having connections running within thy head...Kierkegaard or Heidegger...cannot remember. Flaming/ small talk or silence? it was his absolute belief, in the goodness of humankind that screwed everything up for him, which then reminds me of Ibsen's play "A man of the people"? But I dare NOT make the connection. Prince Myshkin called himself an idiot but in fact he was mentally ill (and I hardly remember the story because I have not read the book but studied it as an example in some hx of lit class so many years ago) But it was neither his idiocy or his mental illness (or was it?) that was his downfall, it was his absolute belief, faith should we say, in the goodness of humankind that screwed everything up for him.
chris, I am full of feeling and I do hope that I remain that way...for the day I give up feeling I will definitely be dead. I for myself have given up trying to understand (scientifically let us say) what was what in Lacan's structure. I could not define anything. But I read and as I read I see that I began and re-begin to see differently. I do believe that Lacan said something to this effect that his discourse included his audience without retaining it. Whatever that means....

chris (uk) - 01/18/03 04:30:23 EST
Lucas, what you say is full of feeling, but surely any common ground of art, psychoanalysis, mental illness and learning disabilities is impasse, which becomes so impasse-able that in our endevours we discover (chatroom and) others driven towards the possibility of Truth (and even love). Somewhere in sweet piles of Lacanese, (there's a notion that) the real 'happens to us'.

jack - 01/18/03 00:44:55 EST
No, Lucas, I was thinking of Prince Myshkin. Perhaps someone will come up with a better translation of the title of that novel."The Raw Youth" became the "Adolescent," but no one much has read either. Nor have I. And, of course, for Freud the Id was the Es, and for Lacan it was the (,)Ca. The difficulty with online discourse is that one says too much (flames) or nothing at all (small talk). One acts-out (because the Other of knowledge, the subject supposed to know, cannot be constituted, given an imaginary consistancy), or one plays it safe, writes as if the Other isn't there--as if, for instance, one were writing a cover letter. As for the question of what the little girl represents: she seems beyond the symbolic, unrepresentable, if it means anything to say that. Does the glass fall off the table? I don't remember. Her power seems to have something to do with that jouissance called, by Lacan, but only in passing, mystical. Tarkovsky saw an angel, inasmuch as in all of all of his rather Dostoevskianly talky films, there is something that the camera sees, very much as an absence, which seems to comment on what his characters say. For instance, when in _The Sacrific_, the middle-aged-retired-actor protagonist maunders about making one's life into art, while he looks at his faint reflection in the glass covering of a baroque painting of madonna and child--tired old theme. He looks out the window--a lingering subjective shot--and then we see him out in the field that he is looking at. He is in the picture, but something is left behind--the look itself. Nice bit of cinematic anamorphosis, no? But I may be misremembering it.

lucas - 01/17/03 18:22:38 EST
chris (uk) - 01/17/03 17:29:56 EST
in the world of 'mental handicap' and 'learning disabilities' certain words are felt to be very pejorative. Yes and in the world of mental illness what goes on in this board could also be considered pejorative...that is because it takes the real suffering of a schizophrenic and attempts to make it into some grand lyrical discourse but there is nothing intellectual or lyrical about being a homeless man, with ulcers,having not had a bath in days, eating out of a garbage can and sleeping on the street because he is hallucinating "jouissance, objet a, Other, Real, whatever". But I think the point here might have been to take us away for a moment into another realm...would that be art?

chris (uk) - 01/17/03 17:29:56 EST
in the world of 'mental handicap' and 'learning disabilities' certain words are felt to be very pejorative.

lucas - 01/17/03 12:15:17 EST
Does the little girl embody Id, when you use the term 'idiot' (Jack)? In the UK. there's considerable consternation concerning particular descriptions implying people with disabilities and the term 'idiot' is quite a put down. That is quite clever(Id/Idiot)and although it is true that we must be sensible in what we say not to offend, the danger is that we will say absolutely nothing, all the same, all neutral and indifferent. Whatever the conversation is and I have no idea what it is, I must say that Jack's voice just sounds right to me, and you can Lacanize that to death.

chris (uk) - 01/17/03 07:01:29 EST
thanks 'lifeless molecule oasis funk ' for pointing out I was in big trouble. If Terry1 hadn't encouraged me, it wouldn't have happened!!!!!!!!! I shall be serious, no more masks!!!!!! This happens with painting too. When you're in the middle of a painting there's nothing worse than someone saying something nice about it. Normally, I have to stop and do something else, until the painting looks as bad as it did in the first place!
However, have we located the Stalker's jouissance or have we got to jouissance, as remainder, as miracle? Does the little girl embody Id, when you use the term 'idiot' (Jack)? In the UK. there's considerable consternation concerning particular descriptions implying people with disabilities and the term 'idiot' is quite a put down ...

jack - 01/16/03 23:32:16 EST
The stalker is leading a bunch of jaded Russian intellectuals into a zone where all desires are fulfilled. He has nothing much to go on, only an idiot daughter, and a passionate sense that he knows something, but that nobody understands what he is talking about. The camera scans landscapes of submerged refuse while the Stalker whines and the intellectuals rationalize. At the end of the movie, the Stalker's idiot daughter psychokinetically transports a glass across a table, to Beethovan's "Ode to Joy." At least that's how I remember it.I visited Tarkovsky's grave in a Russian orthodox cemetary at Saint-Genvieve des Bois. The Russian neutrino physicist who showed me where it was, because he wanted the company of a good walker and fellow alchoholic while visiting the grave of Ivan Bunin, who was also buried there, translated the inscription on Tarkovsky's tombstone as "In Memory of a Man who saw an Angel." Angels are not usually seen, but heard.They announce things. But if anyone has seen an Angel, Tarkovsky certainly did. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, by anything I have said in this forum,and even if I haven't.It's the life I live. But I haven't seen the flick recently myself.

marc - 01/16/03 19:17:10 EST
by the way, the intro to my last message was directed to chris.... my apologies
hey all...sorry, i completely misunder and now stand what you were speaking about. thank you though, to all who pondered my ignorant rambling's on....
by the way, i am absolutely delighted to have found this messageboard... it is wonderful to know that those who study and comprehend lacan's theories can discuss...i just got done reading the legend of saint julian the hospitaler and have found and discussed much of it from a lacanian pov.

lifeless molecule oasis funk - 01/16/03 10:18:56 EST
I saw stalker, by the way..we'll talk. so rather than say chris is talking shit, I'll say What the Dickens and wait for him to see the flick again...man! you are in serious trouble HEE Hee...If other jouissance is being alone and not lonely how is a painting that? if it causes the person to feel alone and not lonely then if the result is jouissance then it would be phallic since the painting is the other, who is there, if phallic jouissance is jouissance with the other present. But what is jouissance? someone wrote it was the excess "a" of the object? so is it a projection onto some real life thing or person, such as a painting? but Jouissance seems like an exhilirating, intense emotional thing, whereas alone w/o being alone seems calming and like between the Phallic J and the O.J.(no pun intended) one is like taking coke on an acid trip and the other heroin and a case of beer....i tend to eggs- adger-ate

chris (uk) - 01/14/03 17:21:37 EST
Terry1 how is my painting rendered? Would Perfume answer: 'it' renders?
My slow crawl past Stalker's puddles was in the direction of the Other jouissance. The Other jouissance as gaze could be Dante stalking Beatrice passed an Iraqi oil well. But associating the Other jouissance, as gaze or as MUSE might be unfortune when a 'self-reflexive aesthetic' can be post Benjamin.
I've noticed, not many people want to be muses these days. Its not much of a chat up line after Dante got to visit his underworld. But, in these days of Evidence Based Practice, I'd like to provide evidence that my paintings have everything to do with stealing (the gaze of) the Other jouissance!
In fact, I render paintings but installations too, video again soon ----- but with others, collaborations seem to work ...
ps. I didn't expect to be talking to Tarkovsky's cast!

slichanoo - 01/14/03 12:48:34 EST
marc refers to the climactic scene when he says \'this kind of behaviour would be unspeakable in their realm" champagne and hats off to marc (and our dinner companion andreii)i wrote about poetic logic of Tarkovskii and it seems like dreamwork (back to freud?)"recoiled cobra" ready to strike again is an example condensation, and, yes show-dog,an incorrect repetition of your "erection." Thank you for pointing out the missing signified in my response. thinking about Stalker may be an aid in marc's terms Imaginary, Symbolic. He seems to be speaking correvtly concerning the film (with exception of "coveting power", expressly remarked in a climactic scene that the Master strangled himself on account of selfish gain). Chris, where do you situate the Real in Tarkovskii? hope and Stalker film combine well. bliss is also a key element...

Olivier - 01/14/03 08:42:27 EST
Je recherche une biographie sur Jean)Paul Gilson, philosophe et psychanaliste lacanien; qui a mis au point une méthode visant à rendre l'éducation des personnes à caractères autistiques plus aisée.

chris (uk) - 01/14/03 03:10:42 EST
Marc, I'm referring to a film called Stalker, by a Russian director called Andrei Tarkovsky, but your reference to the Imaginary is worrying. What is this bliss reference to? Reference to this film included reference to the Other jouissance. Are you associating Other jouissance and first Other?

marc - 01/13/03 19:35:25 EST
a stalker's jouissance, chris, is based on coveted power which is an "attribute" of the patriarchally driven symbolic order.... by achieving dominance over another individual. this behavior would be unspeakable in ther realm of the imaginary, where true pure bliss can be experienced at it's fullest (jouissance...) does anyone believe that the moi constructs the je as seen fit or normal within the confines of the symbolic order?

Terry! - 01/13/03 16:15:13 EST
This text is lovely to 'read' almost becoming Batailleian..........Please keep it running....... Chris not to interupt your words but what painting do you try to re-present? How is your painting rendered?

chris (uk) - 01/13/03 15:08:02 EST
Stalker's a film which has often been on my mind, without my really understanding it. My point (?): Stalker, a film about jouissance and hope. I saw it last and for the second time in Paris, twenty years ago, with someone I loved so much, but lost soon after. What concerned me (in previous message) but have not yet fixed, is the Stalker's jouissance and the Zone as objet a. After 'messaging' the chatroom this morning, I started thinking about selling paintings (I'm a painter): I've often wondered why showing paintings can be so painful. But when I thought about the Stalker's jouissance as the Other jouissance, it occured to me that paintings could have to do with phallic jouissance or the Other jouissance. Would paintings which have to do with the Other jouiisance be hard to sell? I guess there's a 'self-reflexive aesthetic' involved here, Mon. slichanoo But if the Zone as objet a is also the Zone as gaze of the Zone, what of the Stalker stalking the desert in Iraq? Not much water there ... ...

show-room - 01/13/03 13:10:54 EST
slichanoo-- it was "recoiled" erection, not "recoiled cobra"... chris (uk)tarkovsky's stalker lays down on an island (surrounded by water) this was after the crystallized battlefield scene, and also after the scientist goes up alone and comes back...and before tarkovski has writer and scientist converse on going to sleep and what are you talking about, Sir Chris (uk) ? please be more specific please. (I want that object I suppose you have)

FBC - 01/13/03 11:17:42 EST
Hope might be more like fear, that is, it has an object, faith is like anxiety because its object doesn't exist. Hope is then a kind of jouissance where faith is like desire, faith persists when there is no [object of] hope.

slichanoo - 01/13/03 05:42:56 EST
patrick...(and Paul and Peter):psychosis and language, Sem 3, but also the Doctoral Thesis of J.L, which includes historical summary within the development of Psychiatric Evaluation of Psychosis and case history analysis as well (which many find as an intriguing counterbalance in Lacan's work)

BORDER-LINE is also worked on at length, in English language, by SEARLES, Greenberg,(cf bibliographies there) but also Dr.Nasio, which may be available only in french. Having participated in work-shops on the subject a few years ago, we find in the various schools of clinics, differing extreme attitudes in its treatment: while Nasio prefers the method of "declencher (cause) une psychose" by the analyst manipulating the contradictory, parallel discours of the patient in such a way as to remove freedom to retreat from said contradictions, the Searles technique is for the analyst to heal him/her self through affirmation of the correlations of ego-development in the course of the cure, which is nurturing. In the former, we see evidence of schizoide symptoms, bi-furcation, splitting of the ego (not repression) and the concurrent characteristics of language usage, which takes a hop and skip of its own (coq a l'ane), but the hallucinations, says Nasio and his school (a forerunner of Lacan, as opposed to Dr. Czermak who replaced Lacan at the Magnon Lecture Hall wednesday mornings), the hallucinations of the patient, therefore, give rich material with which to work. I spoke out concerning the "will-to-power" in Nasio's barbarous approach and received much assent from colleagues present in that particular week-end workshop.

slichanoo - 01/13/03 05:22:37 EST
thanks to all for this enjoyable respite, the swedish smorgasbord massage message board of lacan dot com, as such it being the continued metaphor of Derrida's "recoiled cobra" are we then all the better by the aftermath and "strike again"? the exhibitionary show-room dog is not castrated, he is not fixed, but Derrida? what of his transcription seminar, would Derrida thus be "fixing Lacan" as he had been, apparently (but doubtedly so) "fixing Blanchot" ? when will the appropriation of metanarrative cease to domesticate desire? even while I ask if "fixing Lacan" (or other narratives) is what Derrida does, would he also be serving to unleash the inherent desire of narrative (in the Heideggerrian sense of re-finding the original questioning, in which process Lacan says to find the answer)? the application of these methods to analytic discourse ( or self-reflexive aesthetic discourse) would be instrumental in lessening the oppressive burden of the Unhappy Consciousness and lead the way to the next stage in psychic development. (NOT the New Age, but the analagous next step of Consciousness...)

jack - 01/13/03 03:47:04 EST
We suppose our being in the object a, and knowledge in whoever occupies its place. But that place is situated by the phallus. To experience that place as full, occupied is phallic jouissance; to experience that place as empty is the Other jouissance. The latter experience seems to be where analysis ends, where there no more than the circling of the drive around a hole. It's no doubt a bumpy ride in any case. Fascinating toy yoU have here. But I'm tired of playing with it. Good LuCK.And best regards to all of YOU. And please forget I said anything, because I didn't. The phallus is not the penis.The penis is merely a symbol of the phallus, the signifier of a desire, which as such, lacks a signified--desire is born of this lack.The phallus is a mark, a mark of lack, a blind spot in the field of representation, without which there would be cause, no call for representation, because there would be nothing to represent. The phallus marks the fact that there is no full presence, no IT that can be grasped by a subject, which as subject only has hands inasmuch as it lacks, is barred and constituded by said phallus, which is all it has of being.The excess is the "a"--which opens the subject to another jouissance than the jouissance of being of the speaking being (parlêtre). Because the jouissance of signifiance, grounded by the phallus as signifier-without-signified, and first mark in the metonymic chain constituting desire, is not all, not whole.The penis serves as an apt symbol for the Phallus, because it seems to be what mama, or the Other, wants, and because it vanishes and reappears again, but only reappears in the syncope of the subject, when it itself vanishes, faints away, fascinated. ByeBye.

chris (uk) - 01/13/03 03:20:23 EST
hope stops me checking lottery tickets during difficult times, but beyond hopeless jouissance ... ... Tarkovsky's Stalker lying on an island surrounded by water covering the debris of a battlefield which the director calls the Zone? A premonition, a foreboding, is the Stalker stalking the past or the future?

Antonia - 01/13/03 02:00:12 EST
chris (uk) - I like your image over hope sleeping in a fold tucked between phallic jouissance and the Other jouissance... Likewise, is hope jouissance of an other kind?

Paul - 01/13/03 00:58:37 EST
patrick - there is no bordeline subject in Lacan. Yes there is psychosis - you can read about it in Seminar 3.

patrick - 01/12/03 20:14:32 EST
i am writing an essay about psychosis and language. can anyone help me regarding what has come to be known as the 'borderline' subject? what are its features? how is this subject related to psychosis? is this a 'new' subject? is it an effect of changes in contemporary culture? if anyone can offer anything at all it would be much appreciated (other than pointing me towards julia kristeva who i know about).

chris (uk) - 01/12/03 10:15:16 EST
hope sleeps in a fold tucked between phallic jouissance and the Other jouissance, and 'not knowing' (indicative of the unconscious) nods off behind the shoulder of the subject-supposed-to-know ...

Bonni - 01/12/03 09:02:52 EST
Not knowing prevails absolutely over common ground, there is a law but we have to guess what it is. The other does not exist so there is no one to say hot or cold about our guesses. Hope prevails most mightily but is easily broken.
Fixing things implies domesticating them, taking them under yolk, this is a denial of the REAL.

show-room dog - 01/12/03 07:13:53 EST
the transcription of Derrida's seminar reads him quoting at length lacan, in reference to the implications of in-vitro generation (as opposed to sexual generation). He said it a few times over with an air of innocence and wonder "the Phallus is not the penis. the Phallus is not the penis." In his earlier days of reading Blanchot, he would write about the absence of inspiration after death, death as the "recoiled" erection, which he enlikened to a cobra "ready to strike." How does old age effect one's choice of metaphor? would impudence be a reason to obtain jouissance at the sonorous repetition of the all-too-Necessary affirmation "the Phallus is not the penis." Is Derrida implying that he is in possession of said Phallus? even a castrated dog would be demonstrative in his genital regalia, or his Regal genitalia, for "the Pen is mightier than the penis."

lucas - 01/12/03 06:28:28 EST
<

Antonia - 01/12/03 03:02:22 EST
"you fix the dog/cat when in reality they are broken..."
you fix - behind the scenes - the price of a commodity...
you fix - give or promise money to a person in a position of trust to influence his judgment or conduct ...
a fix - an addict's dose of a narcotic drug...

Aristophanes - 01/12/03 00:14:53 EST
it seems to be that sexual generation is an accidental by-product of the absence of true harmony between men and women, who in their longing for each other seek to recapture the unity of the androgyne rather than an imperfect reduplication of their sundered selves in children. Sexual generation is thus the mark of imperfection in man's current nature. The circle-men had genitals but sprang initially from the sun, earth and moon, and reproduced by spilling their seed on the ground, like grass-hoppers.

Paul - 01/11/03 20:08:38 EST
Bonni - does "not knowing" prevail over "knowing" as it comes to the common ground?

Bonni - 01/11/03 10:49:52 EST
An accretion of errors comes to truth. One day he says, trust me even though we both know that I, being human, will lie (mainly because I do not know what the truth is). She says, I will trust me, trust in my trust, even though he knows that she does not, can not, knowing the truth, really trust him. So they try. In knowing what one does not know, that they do not know it, there is a ground of oneness, commonness of perception. Out love is the imagined convergence of our individual parralaxed views.
BTW, it is interesting that we say the dog/cat is fixed when in reality they are broken.

- 01/11/03 06:10:30 EST
ooops sounds like we have been having too much fun and have not sublimated into the intellectual (or would that be too freudian)...Big Brother has come to execute us.

Big Brother - 01/11/03 02:17:24 EST
"OH! Sorry Mr. Jack, that was the INcorrect answer However, we've enjoyed having you on the show; you made a great contestant.
But have no fear, we have these wonderful parting gifts for you!
Lucy, tell Mr. Jack what he's won!"
(of message,: Jack - 01/11/03 00:51:21 EST. It's been posted ad nauseum that "expletive words/inflections will be withdrawn from the mesageboard")