I want to put an image about Tank Man Tango
commemerating the Tiananmen Square protests on June 5, 1989
“Twenty years on, those protests in Beijing will be remembered in the form
of a “memorial of dancing bodies” with cities from across the world taking part on June 4″
I think what’s so interesting about this question is its ambiguity.
It reminds me of some things said in Encore,
as if it’s a theoretical question,
but it burrows into the here and now.
If I want something I want to digress
and say something about something I’ve been reading.
In a paper called The Inexistent Seminar,
JA Miller links theory to theology, the N de P to God the Father and a supposition concerning knowledge.
Miller writes: ‘The subject supposed to know is a pseudonym for the unconscious, which implies that there is no unconscious, that what is unconscious for you is the privilege of the subject. The subject supposed to know re-establishes the subject where he has no business to be. There where there is a hole or gap in knowledge, this is where the subject supposed to know is placed.’
Sol – I think Rupert is talking of someone in the look of Freud’s little girl that keeps asking for toys – however she wanted them very much, the minute she put her hands on one she was asking for another… This child’s demand for toys is, according to freud, a demand for the (mOther) to desire her…
“.. when it is a demand for love, different from a demand for something?”. For Chrissake, does something have to appear in italicized capitals? The something is the metonymic impossible, so alive as to edge upon dead, fearfully, fearlessly. Its the god only knows of substance without pain. Of affect without effect. Yes Rupert?
Enjoy your Congrees loves
Still remembering Rupert’s question about a demand for love and a demand for something instead (comment 12), I read a short paper by Jean-Louis Gault about desire, anxiety and love, called ‘The Option of Anxiety’, which was interesting partly I think because of its simplicity. I will quote the last three paragraphs, after saving it up for days. I really do like this paper and particularly the very last paragraph. Perhaps it also refers to mention of the Geneva Congress.
Jean-Louis Gault writes:
‘On the male side we find the masculine fantasy of feminine masochism. It is, for a male, the fantasy that all women are masochists. It means that all women want to give themselves over, in order to repair the lack a man is effected with.
On the feminine side we have the myth of Don Juan, which is a feminine fantasy of a man who lacks nothing, since he is able to satisfy every single woman. A being who lacks nothing, is a feminine image, which makes Don Juan a false man, therefore he cannot provoke anxiety. Contrary to that fiction, the true desire of a man is cause of anxiety for a woman.
I would like to conclude on the relation between love and desire: let us say that while anxiety never deceives, love always deceives. Love tricks or misleads because it veils anxiety.’
about anxiety that never deceives… why that anxiety would be non deceiving? because it always has an object, right? and this is how Lacan tells you to not drown it, not before you find the object…however anxiety results from you your not knowing of the object: all you know is that it exists …
Freud’s A Child Is Being Beaten deals with the theoretical problem of how pleasure and suffering come together – the childhood beating fantasy often accompanied by sexual arousal the changing cast of protagonists encompasses masochism and perversion — who is ready to recognize the actual object as such?
CS – the reference is in the seminar “Anxiety”, which is not translated… In Lacanian Ink 26, we have Miller’s comments: “In Object Relation, Lacan follows Freud’s steps “Anxiety: I can only repeat Freud, is something which is without object… It is this reference to Lacan’s Seminar IV, to this unconditional approval he apparently gives to Freud where one can measure the twisting–what one must keep in mind when one reads the formula of The Seminar on Anxiety as not being without object… The concept, the notion of object, changed, Lacan re-elaborated it in The Seminar on Anxiety.”
Well, Violet, am not sure what you mean by ‘finding the object’ or for that matter what is meant by ‘not drown it’ in comment 30. Are you referring to working through anxiety and perhaps the bearing this has on the proximity of the object?
Rupert, I don’t know if you are talking about love in transference or love in general.
If, in many senses, we’ve lost our bearings, the question might be, where do we go for love?
It sounds like a scandalous question
and I read somewhere the subject always requires a location
sol – there is the Gallaher, Cormac non-official version of every seminar, yes. as you may know, when J. Lacan talked hundreds of microphones hung from columns, like roaches as they say, each one doing for a different version depending on what the transcriber heard… different with a Jacques-Alain Miller his final version includes the original papers Lacan handled him along the way, and before dying
See below the invitation by Lieve Billiet, the co-ordinator of cartels for the NLS. If you would like to work on the theme ‘Daughter, Mother, Woman in the 21st Century’ and participate in the online cartels ‘Towards Geneva’, please reply to this email or contact Lieve directly.
Yes, the London Soc. have just advertised Psychoanalytic Notebooks 19, to publish all the papers from last summer’s, superb week long English language seminar in Paris, on the topic of ‘ordinary psychosis’.
The link is http://www.londonsociety-nls.org.uk
Sol, your question slips me a street festival from long ago, the thought that an online cartel unconsciously limits itself and that its always, always too late … too late to see desire hiding in the drive and the dive lurking in desire …
Will paste a little Derrida from an 1982 interview, which moves away from how your question first touches me:
‘It’s not easy to improvise, it’s the most difficult thing to do. Even when one improvises in front of a camera or microphone, one ventriloquizes or leaves another to speak in one’s place the schemas and languages that are already there. There are already a great number of prescriptions that are prescribed in our memory and in our culture. All the names are already preprogrammed. It’s already the names that inhibit our ability to ever really improvise. One can’t say what ever one wants, one is obliged more or less to reproduce the stereotypical discourse. And so I believe in improvisation and I fight for improvisation. But always with the belief that it’s impossible. And there where there is improvisation I am not able to see myself. I am blind to myself. And it’s what I will see, no, I won’t see it. It’s for others to see. The one who is improvised here, no I won’t ever see him.’
Using the internet as portal to the unconscious and inspired by such sharp teeth, I found a line in a book (by Frank Burke and Marguerite Waller) about Fellini, who is my hero at the moment (since my lifting Nino Rota music in a recent video).
‘As the Fellini female appropriates the phallus, the Fellini male conversely appropriates the womb’
Violet’s title is more complete Sol “god only knows of substance w/o pain”
which is truer to what i intended, suggesting i had hoped an answer,
or an invitation to an answer, to Rupert’s ’something’.
So some questions. The demand Rupert speaks of is an hysteric’s?
Or an addict/obsessive’s? But that’s conflating the two demands,no?
But were they ever distinct?
I imagine Violet’s poor blind impotent(despite the dear little dentata) knob of a creature encountering, bumping into, Sam’s sewer.
Has he found ’something’? Written by Sam Beckett he certainly has(n’t). Or does he just.. detour?
Bumping into Beckett in the dark, you might think you’ve bumped into art, when art seems quite painless, but with art, very quickly. the substance seems less substantial. In the Lacanian world (perhaps) there’s this notion that art can be resuscitated, 300 years on in Joyce’s case, so any substance is conditional: art talks to us because we have to return the compliment, but the melee isn’t painless.
Pellucid’s a funny word!
Have shared a studio with a friend for about ten years and still dread her coming into my part of it and saying something nice about something I’m doing. We joke about this too, but a complement inevitably stops what I’m doing. I can do no more in case I ruin it!
hello again Terry1
Have been looking at how some people use facebook and wondering whether the charm of a collective journal seems like conversations or whether new slow motion conversations will eventually talk through us? In the mid 1930’s, Walter Benjamin referred to ‘art in an age of mechanical reproduction’. What should we call our new conversations or what should we call art with facebook hooks?
chris (uk) – 08/17/03 04:02:51 EDT
Antonia, this is reference to Renata Salecl’s paper, The Silence of Feminine Jouissance, which may describe something of an interplay between desire and the drive. But because Salecl’s description includes the subject of love, its more ‘interplay’ than a move from Odysseus’ desire to the siren’s jouissance or vice versa. In fact, I stumbled into this reference when I should have been referring to late Lacan’s universalisation of the drive, as a possible referrant for psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. So, we can say, Freud bases therapy on neurosis and works towards psychosis, using neurosis as the index, whereas, Lacan looks to the drive and psychosis and works towards neurosis (and the unconscious desire of the sirens). Perhaps, sexuation begins with the drive and works back towards the possibilities of desire and love. So, when Perfume refers to an ‘educational chatroom’ and not just a transferential one, is this reference to movement from something possibly universal to something particular?
Have just found dusty copy of Renata Satecl’s ‘(Per)versions of Love and Hate’ (Verso) on old bookshelf and the ‘Silence of Feminine Jouissance’ in chapter 3. Haven’t seen anything by RS recently – and closer to home – Antonia.
Have been looking at JA Miller’s text ‘On Perversion’ (in Reading Seminars 1 and 2, Suny) and will take a little from one paragraph:
‘Demand is the essential object of desire in neurosis. But the drive is characterized by the fact that, in hunan behaviour, there is sometimes speech in which you are not asking your way. The drive does not ask its way. That’s why it might be said that perversion is when you do not ask for permission – with the exception of masochism. In masochism the other’s consent is essential.’
I remember many years ago seeing Renate Selecl In North London give a talk on Lacan. She was a Prof. of Law then at the LSE. A relationship with Zizek had just ended after having a child with him. ‘From one object to another so do they all behave’
I imagine my working world somewhere between art and psychotherapy, which sometimes seems an odd mix, but my question (facebook-style) is; who would you feel happy meeting: Slavoz in some backstreet Ljubljana bar or Tracy Emin in a Margate cafe, smelling of ice cream and chips?
Perhaps my (silly) question has to do with identifications, in my case identifying as an artist or therapist. But is feeling ‘at home’ with ‘artists’ or ‘therapists’, whatever this might be, all to do with identifications?
I seem to have some kind of limit when it comes to too much talking and want to leave half way through interesting seminars (etc). If Slavoz is buying the booze perhaps my anxiety can be softened!
Comment by Chris Sands — August 11, 2009 @ 5:13 am
“Le réel pour l’être parlant c’est qu’il se perd quelque part. Et où? C’est là où Freud a mis l’accent, il se perd dans le rapport sexuel.”
The question (my question) had to do with anxiety and how identification or booze sometimes lets in a little jouissance.
If it’s a real hiding behind the anxiety, then I imagine two discourses, which just could have to do with art and psychoanalysis or with the artist and psychoanalyst/philosopher.
They can be interchangeable,
but (I imagine) one version of ‘mortification’ expressed in personal terms and
the other put it out there, snuggling up close to some kind of universal.
If art mostly talks in terms of a personal mortification and is mostly on the side of the analysand,
where does this push a discourse of psychoanalysis?
Comment by Chris Sands — August 16, 2009 @ 3:51 am
you mean the anxiety (angoisse) that comes with booze?
if that’s so, what real is behind it?
No, not at all, but we can link alcohol with jouissance quite easily.
Re addictions, Rik Loose (in his book on the topic) refers to an administration of jouissance.
If we can leave Zizek for one moment, have been looking at Renate Salecl’s ‘Anxiety’ (2004). In it she refers to Kiekegaard and an ‘anxiety before myself’.
”… Kierkegaard concludes that anxiety is in the end anxiety before myself, which means that I am the sole arbiter and what I do is entirely up to me. Anxiety is thus linked to the possibility of being able, but, as such, it often appears as a feeling aroused by looking down into a yawning abyss. Though K’s speculations on anxiety might appear a world apart from analysis of today’s capitalism, it is possible to show that the popular debate about anxiety, with regard to the over-abundant choice that supposedly pertains to consumerist culture, very much follows the logic Kierkegard had previously recognised.’ (p.53).
On p. 52, RS writes ‘ ‘Lacan makes a comment that orgasm is a state of anxiety that the subject usually tolerates quite well; however, it can also be a point that the subject very much tries to avoid.’
Comment by Chris Sands — August 17, 2009 @ 3:28 am
in Scilicet 4, an Essay for a Pyschoanalytic Clinic on “the alcoholics universal stand” displays three traits:
1) Affinity, apparently a unique case, of mental affection with a social class, here the proletariat. The trouble with jouissance touches upon a sociogenesis.
2) The inalterable stereotype of the subjective drama that resumes its title: hours and misfortunes of a familiar tyrant. The permanent scenario of paternity as impossible, opens a question on the signifier that would be here denegated. (Verleugnung).
3) The libidinal disaffection versus the medical corpus may get registered as a third trait, significant for the evaluation of the psychic economy at stake, but also of a therapeutic tactic.
But then ‘addictive phenomena’ and jouissance might be confused …
Could this have something to do with why many post-Duchampian artists work between many different forms (or mediums), escaping too much attachment in each case?
Contemporary practice as a ‘regulation’ of jouissance sometimes seems to involve many interpretations of what is meant by ‘work’.
Is there a question here that has to do with addictions to work?
The self portrait by Yayoi Kusama, next door in the symposia perhaps articulates a question about the future of work.
Comment by Chris Sands — August 20, 2009 @ 3:07 am
great question – are you addicted to the drug, or are you addicted to the needle? are you addicted to the pleasure of a minute effect or to the after hassle — effect
was it you who wrote that ‘woman’ and ‘art’ were said by Lacan
to take an interchangeable position as the agent in the discourse
of the analyst?
If so, do you know where this was from?
Or does it ring a bell with anyone?
Cheers, & hope everyone is well
yes, it was me… the place of the agent in the analyst discourse stands for the analyst much as he embodies the Other, again the subject as it appears in the Other, the objet a that transcends the Other… The writing of the analyst discourse:
however the analyst is semblance, and in this he differentiates him/herself from the pervert
as to “woman” and “art” they do take an interchangeable position as the agent in the discourse of the analyst, yes… in that they become — as the analyst becomes in the transference
then with this discourse, for art (and woman), the bar between S1 and S2 is interesting:
‘Art places’, often seen as contemplative spaces,
pushes a displaced artist/agent
in the direction of a different discourse
and the idea that a S2 (as return of the repressed or real) is not just
background chatter or hiss.
In this sense, art discourse
has to be blind to
the binding of work of art
and its location …
And perhaps, with the emergence of the CPCT’s,
the place of the analyst’s discourse
can be questioned … ?
The discourse of the analyst might also be equated with
the discourse of capitalism … (?)
Comment by Chris Sands — August 24, 2009 @ 3:31 am
but do you recall where?
I have been looking in Encore and in The reverse side..
Not what you are looking for
but found in JAM’s ‘another Lacan’
‘That which arrests the signifier, that to which it is tethered, is the object. Subjective certainly is always tied to the object.
In contrast to the signifier in which they all delight, the object has no Other to substitute for it. It represents nothing for another, it does not shift. It rules the desire, sustains it, gives it consistence.’
Comment by Chris Sands — August 24, 2009 @ 3:57 pm