ode to joy

The unofficial anthem of the European Union, heard at numerous political, cultural and sportive public events, is the “Ode to Joy” melody from the last movement of Beethoven 9th symphony, a true “empty signifier” that can stand for anything.
at bar 331, the tone changes totally, and, instead of the solemn hymnic progression, the same “Joy” theme is repeated in the marcia Turca (“Turkish march”) style, borrowed from the military music for wind and percussion instruments that 18th century European armies adopted from the Turkish Janissaries – the mode is here that of a carnivalesque popular parade, a mocking spectacle… (Some critics even compare the “absurd grunts” of the bassoons and bass drum that accompany the beginning of the marcia Turca to farts) and after this point, everything goes wrong, the simple solemn dignity of the first part of the movement is never recovered
The only radical solution is to shift the entire perspective and to render problematic the very first part of the fourth movement: things do not really go wrong only at the bar 331, with the entrance of the marcia Turca, they go wrong from the very beginning – one should accept that there is something of an insipid fake in the very Ode to Joy, so that the chaos the enters after the bar 331 is a kind of the “return of the repressed,” a symptom of what was wrong from the very beginning.
What if the true obscenity is what takes place BEFORE the marcia Turca, not after it? What if we shift the entire perspective and perceive the marcia as a return to everyday normality that cuts short the display of preposterous portentousness and thus brings us back to earth, as if saying “you want the celebrate the brotherhood of men? Here they are, the REAL humanity…”?

against the populist temptation (text)

signs from the future (video)


My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) — Wittgenstein

Steps, ladders or staircases, or, as the case may be, walking up or down them, are representations of the sexual act. — Freud, IoD

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. — Wittgenstein


a sentence

here is a sentence:

ex-amples are in-turnal ex-amplifications of ex-pression

1) ex-amples : examples carry an “amplitude” of goodness-appropriateness with them that is not automatically a “service of goods” or “utility” as a “positive” thing

2) are : they be, they are thrown, they receive names

3) in-turnal = en-tropic. their being is a turning-into-self, they are entropic.

4) ex-amplifications : they subsist by amplifying a voice that cannot be indexed down on a list or tableau, thus you cannot have one-to-one correspondence between examples and what they are examples of

5) of : they belong-to, they are placed tempo-rally (in a repetition that rallies with a tempo)

6) ex-pression : examples come into existence by belonging to you in a manner of hitting you in the head


a meme translated from turkish (in turkish pronouns are genderless)



there is no “he” / “she” / “it”, all three are “o”

word-by-word it is “whoa how come it is dating it”. every third person is das Es.

“o”(he/she/it) may indicate people as well as things, but when you say “bu”(this) it indicates a thing




ancient turkish:


in national education we are taught that for atatürk or god we have to capitalize “O” and apostrophe its affices, like “onu seviyorum” for any random person and “O’nu seviyorum” for god or atatürk, meaning “i love It”, “ich liebe das Es”. so freudo-lacanian, isn’t It


not to mention ata-türk = father-turk / ancestor-turk, surname given to the founder of turkish republic, because turkish people had no surnames before the republic


and many were not turkish at all, and most of them still isn’t, but that’s another story


i mean “most of those who were not turkish” still are not turkish, because “some of those who were not turkish” have become turkish, and moreover, many of those who did not become turkish are no longer alive


if you say “turkish”, it means “türk”. a more accurate term would be “türkiyeli=from turkey” but official people-with-jacket cannot utter that. they can only utter the word “turkish”, referring to the dealing their predecessors have made in Lausanne after WW1 when Syria-Iraq-Iran were drawn


another thing: PKK(kurdish workers party) started a guerilla war against turkish army in 1984 and PKK’s leader has the surname “öc-alan=revenge-taker”


well prime minister speaks of his “kurdish brothers” sometimes, but the constitution says “there are only turks, you cannot speak against turkishness” etc.


and prime minister’s surname is “er-doğan = man-born / soldier-born”.


and here’s more: zizek = (turkish) çiçek = flower and lacan = (old english) to move about or up and down, like rolling water or flames; to soar, to wave, to sway http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lacan

take this

Jacques Lacan, S17: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis, page 49-50:

When the signifier is introduced as an apparatus of jouissance, we should thus not be surprised to see something related to entropy appear, since entropy is defined precisely once one has started to lay this apparatus of signifiers over the physical world.

Don’t think I’m joking. Whenever you construct a factory somewhere, naturally you draw energy, you can even accumulate it. When, the apparatuses that have been installed so that these sorts of turbines function to the point where you can put energy in a bottle are built according to this same logic I am speaking about, namely the function of the signifier.

In fact, it is only through this effect of entropy, through this wasting, that jouissance acquires a status and shows itself. This is why I initially introduced it by the term “Mehrlust,” surplus jouissance. It is precisely through being perceived in the dimension of loss -something necessitates compensation, if I can put it like this, for what is initially a negative number- that this something that has come and struck, resonated on the walls of the bell, has created jouissance, jouissance that is to be repeated. Only the dimension of entropy gives body to the fact that there is surplus jouissance there to be recovered.



First attested in 1868. From German Entropie, coined in 1865 by Rudolph Clausius, from Ancient Greek ἐντροπία (entropia, “a turning towards”), from ἐν (en, “in”) + τροπή (tropē, “a turning”). (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entropy)

Although the concept of entropy was originally a thermodynamic construct, it has been adapted in other fields of study, including information theory, psychodynamics, economics, and evolution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28disambiguation%29)


It’s dangerous to go alone! Take this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JkquxtcNfnM&t=30)


time will tell

The common-sense “dialectics” of freedom and necessity conceives of their articulation in the sense of the famous lines from the beginning of Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte:

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”

We are partially, but not totally, determined: we have a space of freedom, but within the coordinates imposed by our objective situation. What this view fails to take into account is the way our freedom (free activity) retroactively creates (“posits”) its objective conditions: these conditions are not simply given, they emerge as the presuppositions of our activity. (And vice versa: the space of our freedom itself is sustained by the situation in which we find ourselves.)

The excess is thus double: we are not only less free than we think (the contours of our freedom are predetermined), we are simultaneously more free than we think (we freely “posit” the very necessity that determines us). This is why, to arrive at our “absolute” freedom (the free positing of our presuppositions), we have to pass through absolute determinism.

(Ž, from Less Than Nothing, “Necessity As Self-Sublated Contingency”)


“He who controls the past commands the future, He who commands the future, conquers the past.” – Kane

(Command & Conquer wiki: http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Kane)


RA1: “Sooner or later, time will tell”

i and pi

aww.. look who are here…



do you recognize chomsky = i and zizek = pi, and why is this so?


i is a name for root(-1) while pi is a name for 3.1415926… so what is different about them?


On Belief page 82:

There are thus THREE modalities of the Real, i.e. the triad IRS reflects itself within the order of the Real, so that we have the “real Real” (the horrifying Thing, the primordial object, like Irma’s throat), the “symbolic Real” (the signifier reduced to a senseless formula, like the quantum physics formulae which can no longer be translated back into – or related to – the everyday experience of our life-world), AND the “imaginary Real” (the mysterious je ne sais quoi, the unfathomable “something” that introduces a self-division into an ordinary object, so that the sublime dimension shines through it). If, then, as Lacan put it, Gods are of the Real, the Christian Trinity also has to be read through the lenses of this Trinity of the Real: God the Father is the “real Real” of the violent primordial Thing; God the Son is the “imaginary Real” of the pure Schein, the “almost nothing” which the sublime shines through his miserable body; the Holy Ghost is the “symbolic Real” of the community of believers.


there also a third one: “e” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29 and these three are related: e^(i pi) = -1


in zizek’s terms, i think “i” should be the “symbolic real” of a senseless formula = sqroot(-1)


and “pi” has something sublime about it, since it goes on and on and on and on and on and on … http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/…/math5337/groupe/digits.html


ok here are my theses
1) i=chomsky is a question that appears like an answer
2) e=natural number makes it appear so
3) pi=zizek knows that nature does not exist, but it can just “posture” its neverending digits for now


infinitely many digits of the “natural” e is not considered as fascinating as the infinitely many digits of pi, which is curious. can it be due to the imaginary “obviousness” of a circle? remember that circles and regular polygons are symbols of the current legalist western democracy


legal democracy is a big regular polygon (complemented by a necessary minimum of a pentagon) // direct democracy is an attempt to reach to a circle


pi (1998) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNOQUPmgbnY fascination with symbolic real… or “contribution” as they call it ?


“be rational” means “what is your ration?” (algebraic rule / affiliated institution), “get real” means “where are you on the real line?” (topology / political engagement). badiou speaks about this distinction in “theory of the subject” but he does not mention i or pi.

hegelian news

Hegelian news reporting of Egypt:

“But international pressure has mounted on Egypt’s government to avoid a repetition of the July 26 clashes in which over 80 protesters were killed by the security forces, and diplomats including U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns are trying to mediate a solution.

If the mediation fails, the notion that Islamists are torturing citizens in two lawless enclaves in Cairo will pressure the government to use force and risk another bloodbath.”

beware the evil notion! oh the mediation! please don’t fail!