hello josefina, i feel the freudian field could be more active in the states that it is, don’t you agree? you told me so years ago isn’t it?
1:19 AM Nov 11th from Echofon @jamplus, if I agree? the thought belongs in my cherished aspirations… I delight in hearing it is still running, like a dream
Forever fistful for the cigars.
mapping the aliases
perfume protects the canon either as
violet, rupert or admin
lucky either locky, paul or enda
cs Himself, Franz or Walter Benjamin
sol alive and well
jampa JAM packed with goodness
???
and lacan, himself i suppose? this does not divulge anything. and any thing new is suspect and not to be trusted, ever.. I do not believe that about walkabout JAM. It simply doesn’t happen. Or as is loved by the powerbrokers ‘ it’s not going to happen’… ever ever ever trevor tremor. and who knows how many have delirium tremmors..at least 3 by > what they say ay ay . OK- got that slaves!
Someone said the Irish are unanalalyzable. So too i would reckon a burgeoning asia, co-opted no doubt by corporate imperatives, (is that the Irish refusal? an indifference to, or non-recognition of the master sigifier? but sustaining indominitably a ‘desiring-production’? I wonder of the next ten-twenty years, of the place of the analyst on an Orietocentric planet, 50 years hence the western canon, its enlightenment, could persist only in enclaves and the euroneurotic universe will be a trivial left-over
ok, ok was a question to the question of the “jouissance of my name”.
Perfume could have exposed the author, and i’m sure there are confidants, she didn’t
“ok,” ok was a question to the question of the “jouissance of my name”.
…about the jouissance of your name jampa, it is indeed intriguing… how that the jouissance of the name works when the case is that it isn’t the name they gave us, but a name we sort out to be?
of the “ok” phenomena, there is a crowd out there reading, which only gets accounted for in the “stats” — suddenly the crowd had some information to give out… funny enough
Wow. There’s a pronoun thing.
the ‘my’ was any-every-one’s. Maybe MY capitalized would give enough death to it. Everyone who posts leaves an email address, whatever their moniker, (as if the regulars dont leave their dna in their syntax not that i have to, i speak 30 or so idioms of english. like you dont. or the cotterie)
Then there’s a ‘we’.
Then a ‘crowd’?
Not to mention some friggin unmentioable
I think i get it
You don’t want the site cluttered with junk. fair enough
Am i not that from the beginning?
Nietzche asked of Shakespeare, and i ask this of Lacan, myself, and the rest of this ‘crowd’
“What secret does he conceal that he need be such a buffoon?” (ok, he was losin the plot by then)
its this
if we are spoken by the Other, what’s in a name?
what qualifies one to post here?
time after time we’ve seen ducks pop their heads up and shot off, and deer, even endangered species- bang
people curious about lacan come here as they should
often all fired or fueled by a discourse upon or under the influence of
towards what?
the end of analysis which the man in his last years conceded was a synth-homme
i mean
yeah the devil and any angel is in the detail, and an analysis is gonna yield great shit (speaking as an obsessional)
but jesus
what’s so precious?
i aint alone in this
hey can i be frank? i want an analysis
Jampa, if you had a question and asked “what’s in a name?’ there might be somewhere to go but you don’t ask anything unless it’s “what’s in someone else’s name?” So where should we go with this?
Comment by Chris Sands — November 13, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Don t make me laugh in in appropraite setting jampas
jampa – what I mean with a crowd is the hits the messageboard gets. There are around 4000 hits per month to the messageboard… 3000 to Art and Lacan,,the forum has 2500…… and this is a silent crowd that doesn’t even applaud…………….. because I don’t want the site cluttered with junk I use Akismet, yes – it comes with Wordpress and it works great… wish I didn’t need it, as it was in the beginning
Does anyone (in the crowd) know of Eric Harper?
He has a paper named ‘Torture a presence without an absence’
on lacan.com
Does anyone know where he is based, or where to find other
papers by him, particularly in relation to the work he
and Richard Klein did in the cold shelters?
Have come across his work.
Some years ago he was based in SA, but think you might contact him via Richard Klein
Comment by Chris Sands — November 19, 2009 @ 4:58 am
Sol – indeed, it was Richard Klein to handle us Eric Harper’s paper. The Symptom 4 is from 2003. As Chris says he should be the person to ask. His e-mail, from the AMP list is: richard.klein1@btopenworld.com
@jamplus, le poulet a traversé la route pour aller au CONGRES AMP !
@perffume – a congressman who had been in a mental institution, doctors convincing him that he is not a grain but a man, starts trembling…
The chicken outside the door may eat him. “Dear fellow,” says his doctor, “you know very well that you are not a grain of seed but a man”,
“Of course I know that,” replies the patient, “but does the chicken know it?
“….. and the chicken says ‘Really flattered by the attention but, truth to tell, we chooks are the dinners of which you are constituted. Along with the gravy… and potatoes’ The doctor runs for its neck, arms outstretched, bellowing ‘why you little…!!! “
Given the distraction the congressman takes
the opportunity to duck back into the
ward and take up again his game of
ping pong with the gentleman
reciting Ginsberg poems..
Hi
I am trying to get in touch with ye. I have been researching Badiou’s thought for the past three years or so and have written five papers to date, on art as thought and the consequences of Badiou’s philosophy for contemporary art. (You can see this one article published online: “Alain Badiou, Multiplicity and COntemporary Art” in Stimulus Respond No. 6, Summer 2009). I would like to contribute to your journals. I am based in Ireland. Can I send you in attachment by email the latest paper (selected for the CAA, art historians conference, in 2010)? Can you email me?
I feel it is important to share these soon. Kind regards, David
Dr. David Brancaleone
Lecturer
Critical and Contextual Studies (Fine Art)
Limerick School of Art and Design
Limerick Institute of Technology
Clare Street, Limerick
Republic of Ireland
Comment by david brancaleone — December 11, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
I’m trying to locate an analyst in Tennessee. Preferably near Nashville. Sorry about posting here…this isn’t a google-able request.
I went to look for my only book Ginsberg and couldn’t find it.
That makes me annoyed.
Instead I pulled out Hemingway, The Old Man & the Sea
as it was much the same size and color:
‘Think of what you are doing. You must do nothing stupid.
Then he said aloud, “I wish I had the boy. To help me and to see this.”
No-one should be alone in their old age, he thought. But it is unavoidable.
I must remember to eat the tuna before he spoils in order to keep strong.
Remember, no matter how little you want to, that you must eat him in the morning.
Remember, he said to himself.’
…and scratch.
There next door i lugubriously go on about the quotidian and here sol quotes Hemingway. Talk about ticking the clock, or clicking the tock- marking time. My favourite biscuits as a kid were TickTocks and still I mouth round and round within time
2 in the afternoon here, 37c in the middle of the Melbourne summer. getting reconciled to death
in this? i think of Beckett’s
‘lizards in the naked glare..’
Yes violet. Your winter is allover our news. If we’re lucky, our forest fires wont be all over yours
Speaking again of subjective destitution, how do we rate ‘Moon’ (2009) ?
Never lasts long in Melbourne. There’s a cool change on its way tomorrow. Unlike sol’s neck of the woods- if i have him situated aright.
Now i’ve seen von Tier’s ‘Antichrist’. Many wow!!! factors!
From the opening sequence on, i could see Tarkovsky in the composition and cinematography- and then the film is dedicated to the master.
Deeply satisfying!
Textually, is this a meditation on the nature of the nature of the hysteric’ demand for equipollence ? An adequation to the master signifier via a denial of the transference? So her other=joissance is grounded in the real rather than transposed to the Other?
Just some thoughts!
Personally i wouldn’t have killed her! She became the perfect woman (i have a thing for the reconciled hysteric, its a mother thing)- but somehow she couldn’t have lived beyond her self-clitorectomy. So her death is necessary i suppose, within the logic of the film…?
I’m a ‘her’ Jampa and I don’t live in the Mallee – still no cool change,
dark clouds ebbing and waning but one of those dry storms I think.
just stinking hot.
ain’t that a peach! Miss Sol, pleased to discover there are no gender tracks in syntax, or grammar (always thought i read something of the Semitic mordant in yours, so to my mind you were Solomon).
Only have to discover now that Chris is a woman and perfume a man and …
Lucky you are male yes? Now there’s an invitation to some miss-chief
For the record, i’m a bloke, though now there’s some anxiety with that testimony…am i being hystericized?
jampa — of von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’, Tarkovsky, yes… indeed deeply satisfying
as for it it being a meditation on the nature of the hysteric’ demand for equipollence – in the sense she wants to be the maîtresse du maître — I think so, but there is details, like the child approaching the window, which she seems to see in the glass and doesn’t do much to stop him… how to live beyond this one…? or as you say “probably she couldn’t have lived beyond her self-clitorectomy”. Why did he kill her…? I think that’s my very question
Sol (los) would agree with you Chris!
Now i can’t help thinking of Kristeva speaking of the (sur) name Phillipe Soller which equals somehow, in French, ’solar anus’, the sun shining therefrom… and too brightly of late!
violet- i wish he hadn’t killed her! I think i’m in love
What a career has Willem Dafoe had! Played the Christ in “The Last temptation of…”, the devil- Emit Flesti- (please read backwards- should be no want of readers up to that) in “Far Away, So Close”, and now some sort of mediation btween the two.
His character violet is the real puzzle. Seems ill drawn somehow
Unless, I know I’m rattling on, as a signifier of the subject supposed to know, subjected to subjective terror, he deservedly becomes, as survivor of human perversity, beloved of the Natural Triumvirate, deer,fox and crow…as signifier ‘he’ is part of the natural order?
I think he killed her because this is the way it is also in real life. Men complain at women screaming “like sceaming mi-mis, doing cruel things, etc. however the one to kill is the man, He kills her, like O.J. Simpson killed the wife, and so — do you agree jampa?
this is getting too fascinating…
my first thought was the man was the one to kill but you capture the ambiguity- to be killed or to be the killer?
I find myself thinking again now of ‘Breaking the Waves’, von Triers other masterpiece, and wondering if the she of ‘Antichrist’ isn’t similarly driving fate and her own murder… von Trier ain’t Almodovar, but i don’t think he’s a misogynist. And there’s the Gynocide thing, my dictionary doesn’t make it clearer, is it murder of woman, or of her child (abortion, either pre or post partum, partial or complete) or murder of the feminine, perhaps of the womb itself…?
this all seems like important material
In another paradigm of my acquaintance, ‘Woman is always to be adored, because she is in the nature of wisdom’ and von T seems to allude to this with his Natural Triumvirate, perhaps they speak for her as they silently testify to his survival (and the extinction of his Discourse)- as she couldn’t die at all in ‘Breaking the Waves’, and rings it out
jampa – are you saying the killer kills or he would have been killed?
As to the she of Antichrist driving fate and her own murder– like the she of Breaking the Waves, it is a consequence of love. Both seem to adore the men or depend on them to a point of delusion. And I don’t think he’s a misogynist…
In this movie it is murder of the woman — and this includes the feminine, the womb itself, but not necessarily the child
Von Triars women seem to be caught between the intense love for their partners and an external accident, the sorrow of which makes them loose their mind… I think this is the very Von Triars point, they loose their mind because of the intense love being inhibited… till the man kills them, Why as you say, why kill them… ? The men don’t loose their mind, they kill.
‘Moses is the last straw. Why does Moses have to be killed? Freud explains it for us, & this is really rich – it is so Moses can return in the prophets, by the path of repression..’
and another idea
(in Hosea).. ‘there is one sure thing, all relations with women are…prostitution…the idea we get is that the chosen people found themselves implicated in something where things were very probably different, where there were sexual relationships’
so sol the two are to be reversed? the hegemony established in each is to be replaced by the exception- as the rule? is this your meaning? if so i love it! (as an idealist)
I came back in here though to say that i’ve been watching ‘Twin Peaks’, another forum where feminine sexuality is contrasted mysteriously with masculine mystification and the question is posed “oh my god, is this about the soul, about my soul?”
back to your very question jampa, why did he kill her? There is something the French call follie a deux – how does it translate in English?
problem is that in this movie it is for her to account for the acting out of that follie… and there’s him, a victim… the good husband that loves her, wants to cure her, to finally kill her while you ask yourself your very question. Follie a deux is alike the Papin sisters…just that the Papin sisters don’t kill each Other. Is it the same kind of madness? What is his part of responsibility of whatever happened to the child…? He shows her the photos where you see the child will fall from the window – had the child been neglected — of the child’s shoes, she reverses the shoes in the child’s feet… She is mad, psychotic, what have you… Now he kills her.
funny that you seem to dislike your favourite film of the year! What is his part of responsibility of whatever happened to the child…? Maybe THAT is the question!
I don’t dislike the film, not at all, it may be the one that moved me the most in 2009… much more than Almodovar with Penelope Cruz.
” What is his part of responsibility of whatever happened to the child…? The sight of the window with the child walking to his death could have been seen by her – she is lying face up – he is over her so he cannot see it… the image of the reversed shoes comes from photos he had found… he speaks to her in a way you would think it was her to put the reversed child’s shoes on.
yes
he deformed the child
he monstered her to the point of delirium
he killed her
but nature/chaos loves him. i dunno.
maybe its in the nature of things for the phallus to derange a certain woman, for Lars
i had some sympathy for every unfortunate in this film but now i’m not so sure
maybe violet, see ‘Moon’ with a generous heart. It’s moving in its quiet, intense way
As to von Trier’s “The Antechrist”, the husband kills her basically because she is mad beyond redemption, after she forfeits her ideas on feminism by taking sides with the witch hunters (her doctoral thesis he discovers in the attic), and her attitude with their son (the shoes, watching him walking towards the window before the toddler jumps). And also because she screws his leg with some odd tool.
Yes, he is the good guy enjoying life at the end of the movie, eating the berries on top of the hill, he got rid of the madwoman. The triumph of the phallus at last!
He does it for her sake, so much he loves her– to liberate her from hopeless, untreatable psychosis?
This is how you call it the triumph of the phallus?
I was gonna put out a call for your comment Rupert, when this was interesting a coupla posts back- and there you are, being damn provocative. OMG that is so last decade! If not pre-raphaelite. What you up to?
I call in ‘breaking the waves’ beacause it insinuates woman’s suffering into a fabric that can scarcely contain her, which she tears apart as she is woven within
and we are daft not to see ‘Antichrist’ as another call to the same, but more intimate, intrinsic
but refusing the transcendental of ‘breaking the waves’, instead nature reclaims her while surrendering to her man a pyrrhic victory
Yes violet, that Moon, and thank you for the conversation
What, pre-raphaelite? Well, yes, sure, a Victorian gentleman you mean? Like Tennyson, like Freud? Hmmm…
Talking about Father Sig, saw “The White Ribbon” last night, you know Haneke last romp. Sig, Sig, Sig indeed!
Sorry violet, i’m used to my credit card on the net, been using it for years. I know some prefer not to.
dunno about imdppro, but surf the channel, megavideo links, sign up- yes payment required- $20 for 3 months- unlimited downloads. Most recent films, tv series, docos
0.8. “ok,” ok was a question to the question of the “jouissance of my name”.
…about the jouissance of your name jampa, it is indeed intriguing… how that the jouissance of the name works when the case is that it isn’t the name they gave us, but a name we sort out to be?
of the “ok” phenomena, there is a crowd out there reading, which only gets accounted for in the “stats” — suddenly the crowd had some information to give out… funny enough
Comment by perfume — November 13, 2009 @ 10:47 am
18. @jamplus, le poulet a traversé la route pour aller au CONGRES AMP !
@perffume – a congressman who had been in a mental institution, doctors convincing him that he is not a grain but a man, starts trembling…
The chicken outside the door may eat him. “Dear fellow,” says his doctor, “you know very well that you are not a grain of seed but a man”,
“Of course I know that,” replies the patient, “but does the chicken know it?
Spike Milligan’s humour may be particularly British.
He died not so long ago and written on his tombstone is – ‘I always told you I was ill’
Comment by Chris Sands — February 9, 2010 @ 4:58 am
Brian (aka Jesus) is trying to get people to think for themselves
and not to follow him and agree with everything he is saying
(you are looking for a master and you will find one).
Brian says ‘you are all individuals’
the mass chant back to him ‘we are all individuals’
A lone figure, Spike Milligan feebly calls out ‘I’m not’
In doing so he is standing out from the mass, and in
a back to front way, supporting Brian’s call against
the master discourse. It is a very funny moment.
The chickens reminded me of it somehow.
Can i ask what seeds ‘individuality’? Imagined or not… Going back to the es as the subject of the unconscious, is there ever an irreducible individual or to re-arrange Spike, am i not?
the chicken in question sits in the kitchen placidly, unobtrusively… but suddenly has a premonition that she is going to be the family’s lunch. Dispelling the myth that chickens cannot fly, she spreads her wings and flaps madly toward the backyard wall. From here she makes her way to the neighbor’s terrace, then to the roof, to the chimney, and then to another roof — on and on she goes, struggling across the entire neighborhood. The master of the house, outraged at the escape of his lunch, clambers after her in hot pursuit. His skill triumphs over her lack of experience, and he eventually catches her and drags her back to the kitchen.
Exhausted, the chicken lays an egg in the middle of the kitchen floor. The family looks upon this as some kind of a sign: the chicken is a mother! How can she be slaughtered? “The chicken became the queen of the household.” Convinced that the chicken’s fortuitous entrance into the world of motherhood has saved her life, we read into this: life triumphs over death, benevolence triumphs over evil. But “…One day they killed her and ate her, and the years rolled on.” Lispector suggests that there is, after all, no meaning to this chicken’s life, and hence no meaning to our own.
“Suddenly, I look at the egg in the kitchen and all i see there is something to eat. I fail to recognise it and my heart is beating. A transformation is taking place inside me. My perception of the egg becomes less clear. Excepting each particular egg, excepting each egg one eats, the egg does not exist. I can no longer bring myself to believe in the egg.”
Jampa – last night I saw Sophie’s choice, this very dramatic movie, with Merryl Stripp… at the end the very question… “why did he kill her”?
Is there any other explain than the fact that he be psychotic… ?
hello josefina, i feel the freudian field could be more active in the states that it is, don’t you agree? you told me so years ago isn’t it?
1:19 AM Nov 11th from Echofon
@jamplus, if I agree? the thought belongs in my cherished aspirations… I delight in hearing it is still running, like a dream
Comment by admin — November 11, 2009 @ 8:03 am
Forever fistful for the cigars.
mapping the aliases
perfume protects the canon either as
violet, rupert or admin
lucky either locky, paul or enda
cs Himself, Franz or Walter Benjamin
sol alive and well
jampa JAM packed with goodness
???
Comment by ok — November 11, 2009 @ 8:45 am
and lacan, himself i suppose? this does not divulge anything. and any thing new is suspect and not to be trusted, ever.. I do not believe that about walkabout JAM. It simply doesn’t happen. Or as is loved by the powerbrokers ‘ it’s not going to happen’… ever ever ever trevor tremor. and who knows how many have delirium tremmors..at least 3 by > what they say ay ay . OK- got that slaves!
Comment by locky — November 11, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
who Is ok? sorry about the above post all mixed up..and upset the urn.
Comment by lucky — November 11, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
I wonder who ok is? delirium, delirium, delirium…
In any case ain’t no Violet thank you very much!!!
Comment by rupert — November 12, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Thanks for link, I’ll startle it too soon
(alive, don’t know about well [cough lozenge cough])
Comment by sol — November 12, 2009 @ 1:56 am
Someone said the Irish are unanalalyzable. So too i would reckon a burgeoning asia, co-opted no doubt by corporate imperatives, (is that the Irish refusal? an indifference to, or non-recognition of the master sigifier? but sustaining indominitably a ‘desiring-production’? I wonder of the next ten-twenty years, of the place of the analyst on an Orietocentric planet, 50 years hence the western canon, its enlightenment, could persist only in enclaves and the euroneurotic universe will be a trivial left-over
ok, ok was a question to the question of the “jouissance of my name”.
Perfume could have exposed the author, and i’m sure there are confidants, she didn’t
Comment by jampa — November 12, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
“ok,” ok was a question to the question of the “jouissance of my name”.
…about the jouissance of your name jampa, it is indeed intriguing… how that the jouissance of the name works when the case is that it isn’t the name they gave us, but a name we sort out to be?
of the “ok” phenomena, there is a crowd out there reading, which only gets accounted for in the “stats” — suddenly the crowd had some information to give out… funny enough
Comment by perfume — November 13, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Wow. There’s a pronoun thing.
the ‘my’ was any-every-one’s. Maybe MY capitalized would give enough death to it. Everyone who posts leaves an email address, whatever their moniker, (as if the regulars dont leave their dna in their syntax not that i have to, i speak 30 or so idioms of english. like you dont. or the cotterie)
Then there’s a ‘we’.
Then a ‘crowd’?
Not to mention some friggin unmentioable
I think i get it
You don’t want the site cluttered with junk. fair enough
Am i not that from the beginning?
Nietzche asked of Shakespeare, and i ask this of Lacan, myself, and the rest of this ‘crowd’
“What secret does he conceal that he need be such a buffoon?” (ok, he was losin the plot by then)
its this
if we are spoken by the Other, what’s in a name?
what qualifies one to post here?
time after time we’ve seen ducks pop their heads up and shot off, and deer, even endangered species- bang
people curious about lacan come here as they should
often all fired or fueled by a discourse upon or under the influence of
towards what?
the end of analysis which the man in his last years conceded was a synth-homme
i mean
yeah the devil and any angel is in the detail, and an analysis is gonna yield great shit (speaking as an obsessional)
but jesus
what’s so precious?
i aint alone in this
hey can i be frank? i want an analysis
Comment by jampa — November 13, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Jampa, if you had a question and asked “what’s in a name?’ there might be somewhere to go but you don’t ask anything unless it’s “what’s in someone else’s name?” So where should we go with this?
Comment by Chris Sands — November 13, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Don t make me laugh in in appropraite setting jampas
Comment by looky — November 13, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
jampa – what I mean with a crowd is the hits the messageboard gets. There are around 4000 hits per month to the messageboard… 3000 to Art and Lacan,,the forum has 2500…… and this is a silent crowd that doesn’t even applaud…………….. because I don’t want the site cluttered with junk I use Akismet, yes – it comes with Wordpress and it works great… wish I didn’t need it, as it was in the beginning
Comment by perfume — November 14, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Does anyone (in the crowd) know of Eric Harper?
He has a paper named ‘Torture a presence without an absence’
on lacan.com
Does anyone know where he is based, or where to find other
papers by him, particularly in relation to the work he
and Richard Klein did in the cold shelters?
Comment by sol — November 18, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
Have come across his work.
Some years ago he was based in SA, but think you might contact him via Richard Klein
Comment by Chris Sands — November 19, 2009 @ 4:58 am
Sol – indeed, it was Richard Klein to handle us Eric Harper’s paper. The Symptom 4 is from 2003. As Chris says he should be the person to ask. His e-mail, from the AMP list is: richard.klein1@btopenworld.com
Comment by admin — November 19, 2009 @ 10:18 am
thanks both.
Comment by sol — November 19, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
We have a Jacques-Alain Miller blog these days https://jacquesalainmiller.wordpress.com
Comment by rupert — November 23, 2009 @ 4:42 am
@jamplus, le poulet a traversé la route pour aller au CONGRES AMP !
@perffume – a congressman who had been in a mental institution, doctors convincing him that he is not a grain but a man, starts trembling…
The chicken outside the door may eat him. “Dear fellow,” says his doctor, “you know very well that you are not a grain of seed but a man”,
“Of course I know that,” replies the patient, “but does the chicken know it?
Comment by perfume — November 29, 2009 @ 12:28 am
“….. and the chicken says ‘Really flattered by the attention but, truth to tell, we chooks are the dinners of which you are constituted. Along with the gravy… and potatoes’ The doctor runs for its neck, arms outstretched, bellowing ‘why you little…!!! “
Comment by jampa — November 30, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Given the distraction the congressman takes
the opportunity to duck back into the
ward and take up again his game of
ping pong with the gentleman
reciting Ginsberg poems..
Comment by sol — November 30, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
on ya sol,
what’s the one with the ‘congressman skeleton…’?
Comment by jampa — November 30, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
the one where his secretary
gave him a bone job?
I can’t remember..
Comment by sol — December 1, 2009 @ 5:07 am
‘The Ballad of the Skeletons’
‘… said the Buddha skeleton
compassion is wealth
said the Corporate skeleton
its bad for your health…’
Comment by jampa — December 1, 2009 @ 5:40 am
Allen Ginsberg
Comment by jampa — December 1, 2009 @ 6:19 am
Hi
I am trying to get in touch with ye. I have been researching Badiou’s thought for the past three years or so and have written five papers to date, on art as thought and the consequences of Badiou’s philosophy for contemporary art. (You can see this one article published online: “Alain Badiou, Multiplicity and COntemporary Art” in Stimulus Respond No. 6, Summer 2009). I would like to contribute to your journals. I am based in Ireland. Can I send you in attachment by email the latest paper (selected for the CAA, art historians conference, in 2010)? Can you email me?
I feel it is important to share these soon. Kind regards, David
Dr. David Brancaleone
Lecturer
Critical and Contextual Studies (Fine Art)
Limerick School of Art and Design
Limerick Institute of Technology
Clare Street, Limerick
Republic of Ireland
Comment by david brancaleone — December 11, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
I’m trying to locate an analyst in Tennessee. Preferably near Nashville. Sorry about posting here…this isn’t a google-able request.
Comment by DK — December 29, 2009 @ 2:12 am
I went to look for my only book Ginsberg and couldn’t find it.
That makes me annoyed.
Instead I pulled out Hemingway, The Old Man & the Sea
as it was much the same size and color:
‘Think of what you are doing. You must do nothing stupid.
Then he said aloud, “I wish I had the boy. To help me and to see this.”
No-one should be alone in their old age, he thought. But it is unavoidable.
I must remember to eat the tuna before he spoils in order to keep strong.
Remember, no matter how little you want to, that you must eat him in the morning.
Remember, he said to himself.’
Comment by sol — December 30, 2009 @ 9:54 am
…and scratch.
There next door i lugubriously go on about the quotidian and here sol quotes Hemingway. Talk about ticking the clock, or clicking the tock- marking time. My favourite biscuits as a kid were TickTocks and still I mouth round and round within time
Comment by jampa — January 1, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
The text for issue 34 is too wide to fit on my web browswer, I would like to read but cannot, may I suggest a narrower formatting. thankyou blunder…
Comment by blunder — January 2, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
Tick Tocks!! that makes me want one, a yellow one
Comment by sol — January 3, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
Hickory Hickory dock
Comment by perfume — January 4, 2010 @ 9:06 pm
Dickory
Comment by sol — January 5, 2010 @ 10:25 am
Hickory Dickory Dock?
Comment by perfume — January 5, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
I think so.
and ..
the clock struck one
away he (the mouse) run..
like first alienation..
Comment by sol — January 5, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
How did you go finding an analyst in Nashvile DK?
Comment by sol — January 6, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
34 – sol – just why did the mouse run up the clock anyway? was the cheese up there?
Comment by violet — January 7, 2010 @ 1:35 am
good question
Comment by sol — January 7, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
Comment by violet — January 8, 2010 @ 4:16 am
the clock as a speaking being
Comment by sol — January 8, 2010 @ 7:43 am
or as Lacan says in l’etordit:
‘or “in order to make you speak” in other words,
that the unconscious has, by existing”
Comment by sol — January 8, 2010 @ 7:47 am
the mouse ran up to make it speak
and once having spoken the mouse
saw the signifier pointed towards death
he ran away
?
Comment by sol — January 8, 2010 @ 7:48 am
l am liking to think down the track to when the mouse can count the tik an tok
and sees the signifier coming
and runs up
and sits till 2 or 3
Comment by jampa — January 8, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
2 or 3 in the afternoon, jampa?
2 or 3 in the morning?
Comment by violet — January 8, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
2 in the afternoon here, 37c in the middle of the Melbourne summer. getting reconciled to death
in this? i think of Beckett’s
‘lizards in the naked glare..’
Comment by jampa — January 8, 2010 @ 11:26 pm
2 in the morning here -6ºC in midst of the NYC winter… the foreecast for tomorrow Sunday is -9ºC
have to think of lizards in frozen glare
Comment by violet — January 9, 2010 @ 3:33 am
Yes violet. Your winter is allover our news. If we’re lucky, our forest fires wont be all over yours
Speaking again of subjective destitution, how do we rate ‘Moon’ (2009) ?
Comment by jampa — January 10, 2010 @ 1:46 am
I didn’t see it, did you?
Yes I can rate Lars von Triars “AntiChrist” as the 2009 very breathtaking movie, did you see it?
Comment by violet — January 10, 2010 @ 2:05 am
No violet but i recall you speaking of it.
I will
Surf the Channel… megavideo… sign up…. everything streaming for less than $7 a month
Comment by jampa — January 10, 2010 @ 8:15 am
btw. 43 degrees celsius here tomorrow. Will think of you shivering
Comment by jampa — January 10, 2010 @ 8:21 am
43 C degree is the hottest I’ve ever heard about a human being having to dwell in. … much worse than my-9 C…
Comment by violet — January 10, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
Never lasts long in Melbourne. There’s a cool change on its way tomorrow. Unlike sol’s neck of the woods- if i have him situated aright.
Now i’ve seen von Tier’s ‘Antichrist’. Many wow!!! factors!
From the opening sequence on, i could see Tarkovsky in the composition and cinematography- and then the film is dedicated to the master.
Deeply satisfying!
Textually, is this a meditation on the nature of the nature of the hysteric’ demand for equipollence ? An adequation to the master signifier via a denial of the transference? So her other=joissance is grounded in the real rather than transposed to the Other?
Just some thoughts!
Personally i wouldn’t have killed her! She became the perfect woman (i have a thing for the reconciled hysteric, its a mother thing)- but somehow she couldn’t have lived beyond her self-clitorectomy. So her death is necessary i suppose, within the logic of the film…?
Comment by jampa — January 11, 2010 @ 3:08 am
that should be a hyphen (no, not hymen) between other and joissance, not an =
Comment by jampa — January 11, 2010 @ 3:10 am
I’m a ‘her’ Jampa and I don’t live in the Mallee – still no cool change,
dark clouds ebbing and waning but one of those dry storms I think.
just stinking hot.
von Tier, he always kills her off
Comment by sol — January 11, 2010 @ 9:05 am
ain’t that a peach! Miss Sol, pleased to discover there are no gender tracks in syntax, or grammar (always thought i read something of the Semitic mordant in yours, so to my mind you were Solomon).
Only have to discover now that Chris is a woman and perfume a man and …
Lucky you are male yes? Now there’s an invitation to some miss-chief
For the record, i’m a bloke, though now there’s some anxiety with that testimony…am i being hystericized?
Comment by jampa — January 11, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
You seem to have it all back to front Jampa!
Comment by Chris Sands — January 11, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
Sol -
Sol -
Bring forth yr Ah Sunflower – Ah me Montana
Phosphorescent Rose
And bridge in
fairly land
I’d understand it all -
from Nebraska, Jack Kerouac
also
sol los(s)
Comment by sol — January 12, 2010 @ 2:33 am
jampa — of von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’, Tarkovsky, yes… indeed deeply satisfying
as for it it being a meditation on the nature of the hysteric’ demand for equipollence – in the sense she wants to be the maîtresse du maître — I think so, but there is details, like the child approaching the window, which she seems to see in the glass and doesn’t do much to stop him… how to live beyond this one…? or as you say “probably she couldn’t have lived beyond her self-clitorectomy”. Why did he kill her…? I think that’s my very question
Comment by violet — January 12, 2010 @ 4:31 am
Sol (los) would agree with you Chris!
Now i can’t help thinking of Kristeva speaking of the (sur) name Phillipe Soller which equals somehow, in French, ’solar anus’, the sun shining therefrom… and too brightly of late!
violet- i wish he hadn’t killed her! I think i’m in love
Comment by jampa — January 12, 2010 @ 6:01 am
What a career has Willem Dafoe had! Played the Christ in “The Last temptation of…”, the devil- Emit Flesti- (please read backwards- should be no want of readers up to that) in “Far Away, So Close”, and now some sort of mediation btween the two.
His character violet is the real puzzle. Seems ill drawn somehow
Comment by jampa — January 12, 2010 @ 6:28 am
Unless, I know I’m rattling on, as a signifier of the subject supposed to know, subjected to subjective terror, he deservedly becomes, as survivor of human perversity, beloved of the Natural Triumvirate, deer,fox and crow…as signifier ‘he’ is part of the natural order?
Comment by jampa — January 12, 2010 @ 6:46 am
I think he killed her because this is the way it is also in real life. Men complain at women screaming “like sceaming mi-mis, doing cruel things, etc. however the one to kill is the man, He kills her, like O.J. Simpson killed the wife, and so — do you agree jampa?
Comment by violet — January 13, 2010 @ 2:36 am
so you think it’s thoroughly realist v?
Comment by sol — January 13, 2010 @ 6:53 am
this is getting too fascinating…
my first thought was the man was the one to kill but you capture the ambiguity- to be killed or to be the killer?
I find myself thinking again now of ‘Breaking the Waves’, von Triers other masterpiece, and wondering if the she of ‘Antichrist’ isn’t similarly driving fate and her own murder… von Trier ain’t Almodovar, but i don’t think he’s a misogynist. And there’s the Gynocide thing, my dictionary doesn’t make it clearer, is it murder of woman, or of her child (abortion, either pre or post partum, partial or complete) or murder of the feminine, perhaps of the womb itself…?
this all seems like important material
In another paradigm of my acquaintance, ‘Woman is always to be adored, because she is in the nature of wisdom’ and von T seems to allude to this with his Natural Triumvirate, perhaps they speak for her as they silently testify to his survival (and the extinction of his Discourse)- as she couldn’t die at all in ‘Breaking the Waves’, and rings it out
Comment by jampa — January 13, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
jampa – are you saying the killer kills or he would have been killed?
As to the she of Antichrist driving fate and her own murder– like the she of Breaking the Waves, it is a consequence of love. Both seem to adore the men or depend on them to a point of delusion. And I don’t think he’s a misogynist…
In this movie it is murder of the woman — and this includes the feminine, the womb itself, but not necessarily the child
Von Triars women seem to be caught between the intense love for their partners and an external accident, the sorrow of which makes them loose their mind… I think this is the very Von Triars point, they loose their mind because of the intense love being inhibited… till the man kills them, Why as you say, why kill them… ? The men don’t loose their mind, they kill.
Comment by violet — January 15, 2010 @ 2:16 am
ok. now i’m lost
Comment by jampa — January 15, 2010 @ 7:43 am
but hey, shit, i love you violet
Comment by jampa — January 15, 2010 @ 7:45 am
this reminds me of another question
‘Moses is the last straw. Why does Moses have to be killed? Freud explains it for us, & this is really rich – it is so Moses can return in the prophets, by the path of repression..’
and another idea
(in Hosea).. ‘there is one sure thing, all relations with women are…prostitution…the idea we get is that the chosen people found themselves implicated in something where things were very probably different, where there were sexual relationships’
These should be reversed..
Comment by sol — January 15, 2010 @ 9:39 am
so sol the two are to be reversed? the hegemony established in each is to be replaced by the exception- as the rule? is this your meaning? if so i love it! (as an idealist)
I came back in here though to say that i’ve been watching ‘Twin Peaks’, another forum where feminine sexuality is contrasted mysteriously with masculine mystification and the question is posed “oh my god, is this about the soul, about my soul?”
Comment by jampa — January 15, 2010 @ 11:42 am
back to your very question jampa, why did he kill her? There is something the French call follie a deux – how does it translate in English?
problem is that in this movie it is for her to account for the acting out of that follie… and there’s him, a victim… the good husband that loves her, wants to cure her, to finally kill her while you ask yourself your very question. Follie a deux is alike the Papin sisters…just that the Papin sisters don’t kill each Other. Is it the same kind of madness? What is his part of responsibility of whatever happened to the child…? He shows her the photos where you see the child will fall from the window – had the child been neglected — of the child’s shoes, she reverses the shoes in the child’s feet… She is mad, psychotic, what have you… Now he kills her.
Comment by violet — January 16, 2010 @ 1:01 am
funny that you seem to dislike your favourite film of the year! What is his part of responsibility of whatever happened to the child…? Maybe THAT is the question!
Comment by jampa — January 17, 2010 @ 12:29 am
I don’t dislike the film, not at all, it may be the one that moved me the most in 2009… much more than Almodovar with Penelope Cruz.
” What is his part of responsibility of whatever happened to the child…? The sight of the window with the child walking to his death could have been seen by her – she is lying face up – he is over her so he cannot see it… the image of the reversed shoes comes from photos he had found… he speaks to her in a way you would think it was her to put the reversed child’s shoes on.
Comment by violet — January 17, 2010 @ 1:00 am
yes
he deformed the child
he monstered her to the point of delirium
he killed her
but nature/chaos loves him. i dunno.
maybe its in the nature of things for the phallus to derange a certain woman, for Lars
i had some sympathy for every unfortunate in this film but now i’m not so sure
maybe violet, see ‘Moon’ with a generous heart. It’s moving in its quiet, intense way
Comment by jampa — January 17, 2010 @ 7:38 am
Is this your Moon, jampa? the Moon I am going to download?
Comment by violet — January 18, 2010 @ 2:48 am
As to von Trier’s “The Antechrist”, the husband kills her basically because she is mad beyond redemption, after she forfeits her ideas on feminism by taking sides with the witch hunters (her doctoral thesis he discovers in the attic), and her attitude with their son (the shoes, watching him walking towards the window before the toddler jumps). And also because she screws his leg with some odd tool.
Yes, he is the good guy enjoying life at the end of the movie, eating the berries on top of the hill, he got rid of the madwoman. The triumph of the phallus at last!
Comment by rupert — January 18, 2010 @ 4:18 am
He does it for her sake, so much he loves her– to liberate her from hopeless, untreatable psychosis?
This is how you call it the triumph of the phallus?
Comment by violet — January 18, 2010 @ 4:25 am
I was gonna put out a call for your comment Rupert, when this was interesting a coupla posts back- and there you are, being damn provocative. OMG that is so last decade! If not pre-raphaelite. What you up to?
I call in ‘breaking the waves’ beacause it insinuates woman’s suffering into a fabric that can scarcely contain her, which she tears apart as she is woven within
and we are daft not to see ‘Antichrist’ as another call to the same, but more intimate, intrinsic
but refusing the transcendental of ‘breaking the waves’, instead nature reclaims her while surrendering to her man a pyrrhic victory
Yes violet, that Moon, and thank you for the conversation
Comment by jampa — January 18, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
What, pre-raphaelite? Well, yes, sure, a Victorian gentleman you mean? Like Tennyson, like Freud? Hmmm…
Talking about Father Sig, saw “The White Ribbon” last night, you know Haneke last romp. Sig, Sig, Sig indeed!
Comment by rupert — January 18, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
Jampa – I tried to register with IMDbPro, but, although it is free for a while I still have to put my credit card. I hate it when they do that
Comment by violet — January 19, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Sorry violet, i’m used to my credit card on the net, been using it for years. I know some prefer not to.
dunno about imdppro, but surf the channel, megavideo links, sign up- yes payment required- $20 for 3 months- unlimited downloads. Most recent films, tv series, docos
Comment by jampa — January 21, 2010 @ 11:57 am
.||..08
Comment by sol — January 26, 2010 @ 9:06 am
||.18
Comment by Chris Sands — January 26, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
ll.28
Comment by K — January 26, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
0.8. “ok,” ok was a question to the question of the “jouissance of my name”.
…about the jouissance of your name jampa, it is indeed intriguing… how that the jouissance of the name works when the case is that it isn’t the name they gave us, but a name we sort out to be?
of the “ok” phenomena, there is a crowd out there reading, which only gets accounted for in the “stats” — suddenly the crowd had some information to give out… funny enough
Comment by perfume — November 13, 2009 @ 10:47 am
18. @jamplus, le poulet a traversé la route pour aller au CONGRES AMP !
@perffume – a congressman who had been in a mental institution, doctors convincing him that he is not a grain but a man, starts trembling…
The chicken outside the door may eat him. “Dear fellow,” says his doctor, “you know very well that you are not a grain of seed but a man”,
“Of course I know that,” replies the patient, “but does the chicken know it?
Comment by perfume — November 29, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Yes?
Comment by perfume — January 28, 2010 @ 4:56 am
the crowd has a name: ‘K’
and the chickens know it.
ClarK clucK clucK clucK clu.
Comment by sol — January 28, 2010 @ 8:37 am
I like K for keen… wait a minute, who are the chickens, us? A crowd can be sharp, even keen, but it can’t be astute.
Comment by violet — January 29, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
‘You are all individuals’
(Spike Milligan) ‘I’m not’
(the life of brian)
Comment by sol — January 29, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
Just like tod say thanks for an interesting texyual interaction H
Comment by terry1 — January 30, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
So what is brian, much as he is not an individual?
Comment by violet — February 9, 2010 @ 2:10 am
Spike Milligan’s humour may be particularly British.
He died not so long ago and written on his tombstone is – ‘I always told you I was ill’
Comment by Chris Sands — February 9, 2010 @ 4:58 am
Brian (aka Jesus) is trying to get people to think for themselves
and not to follow him and agree with everything he is saying
(you are looking for a master and you will find one).
Brian says ‘you are all individuals’
the mass chant back to him ‘we are all individuals’
A lone figure, Spike Milligan feebly calls out ‘I’m not’
In doing so he is standing out from the mass, and in
a back to front way, supporting Brian’s call against
the master discourse. It is a very funny moment.
The chickens reminded me of it somehow.
Comment by sol — February 9, 2010 @ 8:22 am
So Spike Milligan is the chicken that “knows” he is a seed…?
Comment by violet — February 10, 2010 @ 9:50 pm
Can i ask what seeds ‘individuality’? Imagined or not… Going back to the es as the subject of the unconscious, is there ever an irreducible individual or to re-arrange Spike, am i not?
Comment by jampa — February 11, 2010 @ 2:57 am
Funnily, the ’seed’ of a chicken is an egg
Comment by sol — February 11, 2010 @ 8:34 pm
So that’s how the chicken puts the seed outside itself- in hopes that we eat the seed, and not the actual chicken (itself)
Comment by violet — February 13, 2010 @ 12:56 am
I think so, exactly violet!
Comment by sol — February 13, 2010 @ 4:19 am
Have you read the wonderful story by Clarice Lispector-
i think it’s called ‘The chicken and the egg’??
It’s very worthwhile reading
Comment by sol — February 13, 2010 @ 4:21 am
the chicken in question sits in the kitchen placidly, unobtrusively… but suddenly has a premonition that she is going to be the family’s lunch. Dispelling the myth that chickens cannot fly, she spreads her wings and flaps madly toward the backyard wall. From here she makes her way to the neighbor’s terrace, then to the roof, to the chimney, and then to another roof — on and on she goes, struggling across the entire neighborhood. The master of the house, outraged at the escape of his lunch, clambers after her in hot pursuit. His skill triumphs over her lack of experience, and he eventually catches her and drags her back to the kitchen.
Exhausted, the chicken lays an egg in the middle of the kitchen floor. The family looks upon this as some kind of a sign: the chicken is a mother! How can she be slaughtered? “The chicken became the queen of the household.” Convinced that the chicken’s fortuitous entrance into the world of motherhood has saved her life, we read into this: life triumphs over death, benevolence triumphs over evil. But “…One day they killed her and ate her, and the years rolled on.” Lispector suggests that there is, after all, no meaning to this chicken’s life, and hence no meaning to our own.
Comment by violet — February 13, 2010 @ 4:40 am
“Suddenly, I look at the egg in the kitchen and all i see there is something to eat. I fail to recognise it and my heart is beating. A transformation is taking place inside me. My perception of the egg becomes less clear. Excepting each particular egg, excepting each egg one eats, the egg does not exist. I can no longer bring myself to believe in the egg.”
Comment by sol — February 13, 2010 @ 5:19 am
Seems my question is answered…. by nihilism
Comment by jampa — February 18, 2010 @ 1:17 am
Jampa – last night I saw Sophie’s choice, this very dramatic movie, with Merryl Stripp… at the end the very question… “why did he kill her”?
Is there any other explain than the fact that he be psychotic… ?
Comment by violet — February 18, 2010 @ 4:45 am