full speech

from lacan’s seminar 1:

Full speech is speech which aims at, which forms, the truth such as it becomes established in the recognition of one person by another. Full speech is speech which performs. One of the subjects finds himself, afterwards, other than he was before. That is why this dimension cannot be evaded in the analytic experience.

We cannot think of the analytic experience as a game, a lure, an intrigue based on an illusion, a suggestion. Its stake is full speech. Once this point has been made, as you might have already noticed, lots of things sort themselves out and are clarified, but lots of paradoxes and contradictions appear. The value of this conception is precisely to bring out these paradoxes and contradictions, which doesn’t make them opacities and obscurities. On the contrary, it is often what appears to be harmonious and comprehensible which harbours some opacity. And inversely it is in the antinomy, in the gap, in the difficulty, that we happen upon opportunities for transparency. This is the point of view on which our method is founded, and so, I hope, is our progress.

Continue reading “full speech”


Antiprogression Chain

(appeard in amberconference’13 – paper:PDF – presentation:PDF)

Readers of Slavoj Žižek are familiar with the superego injunction to ‘Enjoy!’. This superegoic injunction is a codename for desire in our age of globalization:

It was Nietzsche who observed that ‘human beings do not desire happiness, only the Englishmen desire happiness’—today’s globalized hedonism is thus merely the obverse of the fact that, in the conditions of global capitalism, we are ideologically ‘all Englishmen’ (or, rather, Anglo-Saxon Americans…). So what is wrong with the rule of the pleasure principle? In Kant’s description, ethical duty functions like a foreign intruder that disturbs the subject’s homeostatic balance, its unbearable pressure forcing the subject to act ‘beyond the pleasure principle,’ ignoring the pursuit of pleasures. For Lacan, exactly the same description holds for desire, which is why enjoyment is not something that comes naturally to the subject, as a realization of his or her inner potential, but is the content of a traumatic superegoic injunction. (Žižek, 2012)

Continue reading “Antiprogression Chain”

quantum ideology

ideology in the truly purest… these are from Karen Barad’s Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning (2007) a book referenced in Zizek’s Less Than Nothing:

APPENDIX A: Cascade Experiment by Alice Fulton

Because faith creates its verification
and reaching you will be no harder than believing
in a planet’s caul of plasma,
or interacting with a comet
in its peri helion passage, no harder
than considering what sparking of the vacuum, cosmological
(and so on and so on)

Continue reading “quantum ideology”


an exercise for supposing-to-know:

1) imagine things you like. it is inevitable that you will imagine things you like. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection)

2) ought to remove the unfit. compare everything and remove the unfit, quick! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons)

3) focus and repeat: choice is possible, choice is possible… (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice)

4) choice is possible, we are free, and you have the final decision. choose! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_party_system)

5) well, we *are* free and you *do* choose, but things *are* complex, you know? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipartite_entanglement)

“Woman” “does” “not exist”?

The ‘I’ does not stand apart from the prevailing matrix of ethical norms and conflicting moral frameworks. In an important sense, this matrix is also the condition for the emergence of the ‘I,’ even though the ‘I’ is not causally induced by those norms. We cannot conclude that the ‘I’ is simply the effect or the instrument of some prior ethos or some field of conflicting or discontinuous norms. When the ‘I’ seeks to give an account of itself, it can start with itself, but it will find that this self is already implicated in a social temporality that exceeds its own capacities for narration; indeed, when the ‘I’ seeks to give an account of itself, an account that must include the conditions of its own emergence, it must, as a matter of necessity, become a social theorist.

Continue reading ““Woman” “does” “not exist”?”